<p>I was thinking more that you could expect the "definition" of middle class to be a little higher in areas where it costs more to live. It wouldn't be fair to give more aid to someone who earns 40k in, say, rural NY, than to someone who earns 50k in urban California. But anyway I was really asking to get a general sense of what's considered low/middle/high income.</p>
<p>There are people on CC who consider that 235K I quoted for Atherton CA as middle class. For virtually anywhere including CA, it isn't.</p>
<p>OK...I'll bite. If someone qualifies for free or reduced lunch, I would say that they have financial need...definitely. It's really hard to give a specific number...if a family has five children and an income of $75,000 per year, they would be on the edge. If that same family had only one child, and no mortgage on their home (it was paid off), they would be in a very different situation with regard to their finances.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would argue it is the merit aid policies of many colleges driven by their desire to improve their USNWR rankings that is preventing them from fixing their need-based formulas. With limited funds you can't expect them to cater to the needs of the middle class at the same time that they shell out the limited funds they have to bribe the kid who would go to Yale otherwise. Get rid of the merit aid and more money will become available for those who need it.</p>
<p>But who "needs" it, cellardweller? </p>
<p>thumper, how many children to have is at least as much in the "choice" department as where to live, isn't it?</p>
<p>Of course, the kid has no choice in where to live/how many siblings there are.</p>
<p>I'm just wondering what a typical American lower/middle/upper class household incomes per person would be. Just a reasonable answer, what do most people generally consider lower/middle/upper class?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But who "needs" it, cellardweller?
[/quote]
I don't have any major issues with the FAFSA, or IM as a measure of need. It may not always work best for me and I may object to some of the choices of assets and cutoffs, just as I object to some elements of the tax code, but it is still a reasonable basis for calculating an EFC. What I seriously disagree with is calling loans financial aid. That is just misrepresentation. Even the IRS does not require that a tax break has to be paid off in annuities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is zero sum game. Merit aid is generally taken out of the same pool of funds as need-based aid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Evidence, please?</p>
<p>In fact, the funds for many merit scholarships are donated to colleges and universities expressly for the purpose of offering a deal to especially desirable students. Donors may be alums, locals who value the reputation of a large local university, even retired faculty. There is no reason to believe the money would be donated to the university for any reason other than to attract certain kinds of students.</p>
<p>In the state I live in, specific merit scholarships have been established by the state legislature to try to stem the flow of high-achieving students to neighboring states. Some may be used at private, as well as public, institutions. These funds did not come out of the higher education budget, but out of general funds (and gambling boat proceeds).</p>
<p>I believe it is the height of arrogance to suggest that students who choose to accept merit awards even though they "could" have attended pricey full-price establishments are making a crass deal with the devil and selling themselves short. Is CFI* actually concerned about the competition?</p>
<p>*Cellardwellar's Favorite Institution</p>
<p>Unlike some, I would defend a system that rewards merit--however that is defined by any particular institution--even if the broken needs-based system is repaired. Too bad if HYPMS, or whatever the acronym of the day is, loses a few stellar candidates. Some of the marginal admits at the no-merit schools should be happy the system exists to relieve a bit of the pressure.</p>
<p>I believe it should have an impact, but I'm biased.</p>
<p>If there are 2 people, both have a high gpa and average and all that stuff
but one is more financially inept, then they should recieve the grant</p>
<p>it's very very very hard to do extracurricular activities, and keep your grades up if you need to work 3 jobs and take care of the rest of your family</p>
<p>I say give them money</p>
<p>
[quote]
Evidence, please?
[/quote]
Here is a typical article that discusses the trade-off between merit and need-based aid and why and increasing number of instituions are moving away from them.
A</a> Push for Need-Based Aid :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education's Source for News, and Views and Jobs</p>
<p>The linked Heller study analyzes the evidence that increased spending in merit aid may be related to a reduction in enrollment in lower income students. </p>
<p>Another study looked at the practice of offering discounts to NMS and its effect on enrollment of lower income students.</p>
<p>It concluded:
[quote]
Our study has provided the evidence that, other factors held constant, an increase in the share of institutionally funded NMS students in a college or university’s first-year class is associated with a reduction in the share of Pell Grant recipients among the undergraduate student body at the institution. The magnitude of this displacement effect is largest at the institutions in our sample that enroll the greatest number of NMS students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the state I live in, specific merit scholarships have been established by the state legislature to try to stem the flow of high-achieving students to neighboring states.
[/quote]
There is little evidence that these programs signficantly affect the yields of high achieving students. Perceived value has little to do with price and excessive discounting actually tends to reduce perceived value. </p>
<p>
[quote]
These funds did not come out of the higher education budget, but out of general funds (and gambling boat proceeds).
[/quote]
That is irrelevant. The legislature could just as well have allocated these funds to reduce in-state tuition for all students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe it is the height of arrogance to suggest that students who choose to accept merit awards even though they "could" have attended pricey full-price establishments are making a crass deal with the devil and selling themselves short.
[/quote]
I didn't say that. I just argued that the decision to matriculate based on a merit award was often not economically justified. A controlled study in the first article showed that giving a fancy name to the merit scholarship has a bigger effect on yield than the actual tuition paid by the student.</p>
<p>Cellardwellar,</p>
<p>Have you ever taken a good look at the merit scholarship process? Some of these scholarships require the applicant to write an <em>additional</em> six essays over those required by the regular application. Some require several iterations of grueling panel interviews. Some even require the kids to do advance reading - books and articles - in preparation for "observation". There are classroom discussions, essays, social outings, etc. </p>
<p>Then watch and see the same group of kids spending their weekends traveling from school to school on these interview weekends - in addition to taking a full load of AP classes, involved in sports, music, and even part time jobs - trying for one of a handful of merit scholarships. Oh, and don't forget, coming back to make up all the work they missed during these four day interview sessions. Why would they do this? Because their families do not qualify for FA, yet do not have the resources to afford to pay for college - these kids know this is the only way they will attend this type of college. </p>
<p>Then, after you've observed the ordeal some of these kids go through - sit at the lunch table and listen to others who don't bother to "apply for scholarships" because "my family qualifies for FA and any scholarships I get will just be turned over to the school, anyway." And, don't be too surprised when the conversation turns to the new car the FA kid is getting from Mom and Dad for graduation.</p>
<p>There is always more than one side to an issue - if you care to look!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't have any major issues with the FAFSA, or IM as a measure of need.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And herein lies the difference. (Just like last time ;)) . I'd wager to say that most folks who don't have major issues with the existing FA system like it more than those with major issues. In fact, I'd guarantee it. Glad that need aid is working out for you. Truly. I am. For many it doesn't and you shouldn't suppose that your experience bears any relationship to theirs. Brand us with the big red "M". I'm sure most of us won't mind a bit. Your judgment means nothing to me as I'm sure mine means nothing to you. It is given that neither of us will change our minds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, don't be too surprised when the conversation turns to the new car the FA kid is getting from Mom and Dad for graduation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is much more evidence that merit scholarship go to higher income students than need-based FA awards. After all, SAT scores closely track income, so a program that gives out money to NMS students for instance will overwhelmingly benefit higher income families.</p>
<p>I don't have major issues with the FAFSA or IM, because I believe it represents a reasonable compromise in an effort to allocate aid to the largest number of students. If I wanted to have the system designed to best suit my personal preferences, it would be very different. I would for one allow for adjustment to the EFC for mortgage, medical and other deductions just as for calculating taxes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't have major issues with the FAFSA or IM, because I believe it represents a reasonable compromise in an effort to allocate aid to the largest number of students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I believe it is an abomination before God that will send it's authors to a fiery lake of never-ending torment. But hey, I've mellowed over the years. ;)</p>
<p>(It's a joke. I don't believe in a fiery Hell. I believe Hell is a small room with a TV permanently tuned to only Fox News , Big Brother, and Wife Swap.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe Hell is a small room with a TV permanently tuned to only Fox News , Big Brother, and Wife Swap.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Add American Idol to that list and we can at least agree on something. I hide in my office and turn to CC whenever that abomination of a show is on. Give me PBS and that's all I need.</p>
<p>Why does this topic bring up so much resentment?</p>
<p>Of course there should be need-based aid. Lots of it, much more than there is now. Four-year colleges cost way too much in relation to annual incomes and most people's ability to save. Since colleges want to educate as many capable students as possible, there has to be all kinds of help available, from both public and private sources. I just don't get what the counter-argument would be.</p>
<p>Current definitions of need are clumsy and inadequate, but even if every known problem were fixed, new problems would show up. Any formula-based system that's simple enough to implement is going to be a blunt instrument. Still, it's better to try to fix some of the current problems than not. My own top picks would be to have more geographic sensitivity - for example, allow people to list all the real taxes they pay, instead of using a multiplier that doesn't begin to cover their real taxes, and build in a cost of living allowance, at least up to the level of rental housing. But clearly there are a lot of ways the formulas are messed up besides this.</p>
<p>I remember the anxious times I went through as a student with no financial cushion. It was stressful, especially in graduate school when I did not have good aid packages. But the trade-off was that I was financially independent, whether I wanted to be or not, and this was not a bad thing. This is going to sound pollyannaish, but I think this isn't quite the zero-sum game people think it is.</p>
<p>cellardwellar, the most important part of the story in your first link is that Hamilton's main competitors don't offer merit aid either, and they hadn't been very successful wooing away top students from Williams, so they didn't have much to lose by dropping the merit program! Wow, not too convincing.</p>
<p>Those schools that do succeed in attracting students who will enhance their programs will continue to offer merit scholarships. Those who don't need to, won't, because they can get good PR by advertising the High Morals line. And, those who aren't in the running for top candidates even when they make lucrative offers will drop the merit programs because it is embarrassing when almost all of the offers are rejected.</p>
<p>It isn't all about taking the high road. If the day arrives that the big-name non-merit schools are losing too many high-performing applicants (it won't be soon), the morals of the situation will be redefined to fit the needs of the day.</p>
<hr>
<p>I gave up on PBS long ago. My idea of hell is a TV tuned to any program at all. But I'm a grouch.</p>
<p>Look; if the individual school, their alumni, or other contributor wants to give more need based aid, then more power to them. They can give as much as they want. There are a lot of government funded aid programs which I do have a problem with. Not that there is aid, but it is disproportionate. Also, I would rather see government aid going to help the homeless, sick, hungry, etc...</p>
<p>If a $50,000 a year school wants to give need based aid to people out of their own money or that of an alumni or contributor, then that's great. But any type of government aid; which there is a lot of if you know where to look; should be limited to Public Universities. First, because it's public money and therefor should go back into a public university. And 2nd; because public schools are generally less expensive. This will allow them to help more individuals go to college. Helping to go to Harvard, Yale, etc... with government aid is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Also, many states offer some very attractive aid to their state schools. There's merit and need based aid in many states. Wyoming happens to be one state that if you are a resident, they assist in paying for college. They have merit and need. Both are tiered depending on how well you did in High School classes and/or also your level of need. It isn't a full ride, but it can come close to where some work programs and summer jobs can cover the difference. It's that good. I have no problem with a plan like that, because they will ONLY ALLOW YOU to use it in a state college 2 or 4 year school. It isn't meant to augment the $50,000 a year school. Basically, no public funds should ever be used to provide educational aid to a private school unless it is the only school that happens to offer that particular course of study.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But any type of government aid; which there is a lot of if you know where to look; should be limited to Public Universities. First, because it's public money and therefor should go back into a public university. And 2nd; because public schools are generally less expensive. This will allow them to help more individuals go to college. Helping to go to Harvard, Yale, etc... with government aid is ridiculous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Private schools receive public funds in the form of research grants and other types of funding, do they not? How is it rediculous for federal funds to provide monies for higher ed at these institutions? Are there any significant number of private schools that don't receive some form of federal money? If the remainder of aid is augmented via the private school coffers, or other means, I fail to see how these public funds are wasted or misappropriated.</p>
<p>Christcorp, you sound confused. Are you under the impression that amount of a Pell grant goes up when a student goes to a private school? It doesn't. No one is getting a free ride to Harvard with federal aid. The federal grants are so small that they hardly make a dent in the cost of a state school in my state. So your argument that public money would go further if students were only allowed to use it at public schools makes no sense.</p>