<p>When you posted this a bit ago, I wanted to say- but you do know that some of the folks here against need aid are against all need aid, right? </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's great if a college makes a highly affordable offer to a family, and I don't decry anyone of any income applying for financial aid, but if the college's purpose is (as colleges usually state) to make attendance possible for students of a broad range of income, it shouldn't surprise anyone if financial aid dollars are aimed mostly at the students with the most limited means.
[/quote]
And they do decry and decry and decry. Almost dewail. ;)</p>
<p>Personally, I think that private schools should stop subsidizing tuition (yes, even the billionaires S/D is getting often substantial tuition subsidy from the endowment of the school), and plow the additional tuition revenues straight into financial aid - with aid calculations made more generous to compensate. And I say this as someone whose family pays full freight at Princeton (and yes, my parents agree ;)).</p>
<p>I see absolutely no good reason to charge the same price to people with different abilities to pay (which is, more or less, what a loans-only package represents, with some differences stemming from the temporal delay in loan repayment). In an ideal world, I think any student who got into their college of choice should be able to attend it. Obviously that will probably never happen, but I think it would be a far better situation than the one Christcorp outlines. Far, far better.</p>
<p>It's hard to take this discussion seriously, but I'll try .... really, REALLY try. OK, I say let's just do away with all grants. Smart poor people can "work their way" through community college, and then maybe join some company that pays some portion of employees' education costs. Oh darn, that would be a GRANT wouldn't it? And all those "rich kids" (who by the way are usually great credits to their schools and society) let's make them take out loans rather than accept GRANTS from their parents. </p>
<p>You must excuse me now. Reality calls and I must go.</p>
<p>I personally find merit aid much more objectionable than need-based aid. It distorts the system and often forces parents and students to make unwise trade-offs between quality of education and economics. The decision is then rationalized with the dubious claim that where you go to college has no effect on your future. A college education should not be like buying a car. Most other countries certainly don't think so. </p>
<p>The fact that the most selective private colleges have opted for a progressive tuition system through needs-only aid programs, financed without a single cent from the taxpayers, should be commended not disparaged. Without it, entire professions would be further decimated. What high achieving student would want to get in to teaching or public service if he or she was saddled with debt too large to ever repay? Some of the LACs and universities with the most generous need-based aid packages are also among those that provide the greatest number of students going for PhDs, government research, spending time working for Teach for America or the Peace Corps. The total number of student helped this way may be small but the cumulative effect is very substantial. In the end, many of these students are the ones subsidizing our own lifestyle, not the other way around.</p>
<p>It is zero sum game. Merit aid is generally taken out of the same pool of funds as need-based aid. This is precisely the reason why an increasing number of elite private colleges are moving away from it. </p>
<p>Take Caltech as an example. The merit awards were often used to attract students away from MIT for instance. But Caltech is hardly struggling to get the best and the brightest. The average SAT scores of their incoming students is actually slightly higher than MIT's. Eliminating merit aid may allow them to attract more top international students for whom there is no financial aid at present. </p>
<p>In addition, merit aid tends to create a two tier student body. The "meritorious" and the less-so. The ones with the privileged access to the faculty, better research positions, fancier dorms and the rest left to feel like second rate citizens. Our D. turned down several full rides specifically for that reason. She never asked for the scholarships and did not like the idea of being singled out for her achievements with most of the rest of the class feeling disenfranchised. We respected her decision even if in the end it cost us more.</p>
<p>Yes rewarding people for working hard and being successful is very Anti - American these days. Thank God for Barack Obama and his goal of eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy so that oil prices will come down.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it is the "brokenness" of the system that causes most of the problems and bad attitudes toward FA. </p>
<p>Some on CC like to equate "lesser" incomes with "disadvantaged". When that is truly the case, I think almost everyone on this forum believes the student deserves help. However, there are just too many cases where the "lesser" income is a result of "choice". And, sometimes that "choice" is to better position the student for merit or financial aid. </p>
<p>Many, even among CC parents, have "elite" educations and have chosen to forego employment. Some have chosen to work fewer hours, retire early, etc. etc. etc. Many do so to homeschool or supplement their child's education - thus positioning them for honors and awards that full-time employees working long hours only dream of doing. Other's position themselves for FA. I think few would see these offspring as "disadvantaged". </p>
<p>Then there are the issues of retirement. There are those that have lower incomes but full pensions, great insurance, etc.. Those with expensive houses can "shelter" such from the FA screening and then sell it to fund retirement. However, Cur's ranch cannot be treated as such. And, then there is the entire category of savings - individual situations often determine whether one can "shelter" such in IRA's, 401K's, etc. </p>
<p>It is the "brokenness" that most deem unfair - not the desire to assist those in true need.</p>
<p>cellardweller, I had just commented earlier in a p.m. that we could expect a post like yours before long. You do not disappoint. As you well know, I have fought this battle before. Right now I'll just cut to my tag line- </p>
<p>Fix tuition costs and need based aid formulas and then we'll talk. Until then merit aid is the only hope some middle-class families have to send their kids to schools that will best meet their needs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many, even among CC parents, have "elite" educations and have chosen to forego employment. Some have chosen to work fewer hours, retire early, etc. etc. etc. Many do so to homeschool or supplement their child's education - thus positioning them for honors and awards that full-time employees working long hours only dream of doing. Other's position themselves for FA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I really doubt this phenomenon to be very common. I hear anecdotes on these boards, but have still to see much evidence. Forgo your job and income so that your child gets into the Ivy League or MIT? What if your kid doesn't get it, which is more likely than not even with stellar grades, what then? Frankly, if there was some common system to make you look more needy, I believe the colleges would have found it by now and adjusted to it. They have ever incentive to use their limited need-based budgets in the best way possible. Each college has its own need-aid policy and may or may not discount certain assets or take special circumstance sinto account. That is why no two financial aid offers are the same. </p>
<p>Even if a few scammers can cheat the system just as they cheat on their taxes, this does not make the system broken if it works in the vast majority of cases.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Forgo your job and income so that your child gets into the Ivy League >></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Gee...there's a whole other thread about some father who quit his job three years ago so that he could shuttle his son around to various activities to position him for college acceptances. He got accepted at Duke, CalTech and Rice...but not MIT, Stanford or any of the Ivies he applied to.</p>
<p>Not just anecdotal...this one was actually in the newspapers.</p>
<p>What would you consider lower/middle/high income? Perhaps on two scales... in areas, like Cal, with a high cost of living, and in areas that are not so expensive.</p>
<p>Atherton CA has a Household Median Income = $235,726. I believe this is the highest in the US, a very rich town. This should give people a sense of how accurate it is to say that you are middle class with this income. You may be middle class here but you are way above middle class pretty much everyplace else.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but I do not think your income status (low, middle, high) should be based on where you live. Like many other things...that is a choice (I live in one of the most expensive areas...my choice).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not just anecdotal...this one was actually in the newspapers
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is precisely what makes it anecdotal. if it wasn't such a man bite dog story it wouldn't be all over the papers. In any event I don't see what this story has to do with need-based aid. He did not leave his job to get better financial aid. And the whole plan backfired anyway.</p>