<p>Hello, I'm going to be a college freshman next year but I just have a question in mind and I'm just curious about others' opinions. We all know high-achieving students receive merit scholarships and admission to school that provide 100% demonstrated need. My question is: Should students who aren't so high-achieving, but are still interested in college, receive the same level of financial aid? Yes, I know state schools exist, but I know of many cases where an education at an elite school for some students is cheaper than that of state school.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Just curious, who do you think should pay the full cost of education for every student who is interested in college regardless of their ability level? For every dollar of financial aid given, whether merit or need based, or a public or private college, there is either a taxpayer, a full-pay student (really their parents), or someone who donated to the college or a scholarship fund who is actually paying that dollar. Should those parties all be paying more so every kid who has even a passing interest in college can attend without loans?</p>
<p>Even in countries where higher education is fully funded by the government (at no cost to the student), eligibility for funding is still dependent on the student’s performance in high school. Mediocre students will NOT get funding to attend the country’s elite universities. They’ll have the choice of trade school or community college. Why should it be any different here?</p>
<p>In most of those countries they also control how many of each major can enter college every fall. So not only is entrance dependent on high school and test performance, but permission to study a specific major is as well. And… even that education is not “funded by the government”. It is funded by tax dollars or by government borrowing (just clarifying for the OP that it is important to think about where the money actually comes from).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, just out of curiosity, why should those students go to college at all? Perhaps they (and society) would be better off if they didn’t waste the four years in college and just learned a trade instead.</p>
<p>What’s “affordable”?</p>
<p>I can promise you that that means something FAR different to my family than 80% of CCers.</p>
<p>Costs are out of control. However, I still much prefer our system over those where you are admitted to a single major and other things are cut to keep costs low. I wouldn’t want to adopt a UK model or something. A compromise would be nice though.</p>
<p>The OP’s error is the focus on “elite”. </p>
<p>If the OP were willing to expand his/her notion of what comprises an acceptable place to pursue an education, he/she would quickly see that yes, almost everyone has affordable options (regardless of merit) in their own home town community colleges.</p>
<p>*We all know high-achieving students receive merit scholarships and admission to school that provide 100% demonstrated need. *</p>
<p>You have a mistake here. Accepted high achieving students receive NEED-BASED aid based on NEED from schools that provide 100% demonstrated need. A high achieving student receives NOTHING if he has no need. Demonstrated need isn’t merit-based.</p>
<p>* Should students who aren’t so high-achieving, but are still interested in college, receive the same level of financial aid*</p>
<p>If there were an unlimited money supply out there in the college world, then sure. But schools have limited funds just like the families who can’t pay all costs. </p>
<p>Only the top schools, which only have a limited seats, can fund all of its students’ need.</p>
<p>So, where do you suggest these magical money tree be found?</p>