<p>But if you need money to pay the bill & buy books, work study doesn’t help … you can’t deduct that from your bill.</p>
<p>It is easier for me to wrap my head around how FA is treated if I think of it as welfare for students. Income (merit money) reduces welfare (need based aid).</p>
<p>Just did FAFSA. EFC is 21000. I knew it would be high but not this high. We cannot honestly afford to pay that. D has received two honors scholarship offers 11000 and 14000 so this will not go to reducing our EFC?</p>
<p>Well it is a burden, Tennis, and no hard feelings – let’s hope we (and our spouses) stay employed through these college treks!!</p>
<p>Geek Mom, I like your rent example because it is a component of college COA. I think once the full rent has been covered, not paying for my neighbor to go to Tahiti, but that capping merit + need at COA (which I assume all FinAid programs would do) covers that.</p>
<p>But we need to recognize that merit awards are not charity: the colleges that choose to offer true merit awards are intentionally poaching to boost the top end of their classes. That is what the college intends to buy with its mrit scholarship dollars. So yes, the merit kids have earned those merit awards and shouldn’t be bait and switched out-of-pocket after the college has gotten the benefit of their stronger class profile/student to brag about.</p>
<p>I have no difficulty if colleges choose to call something “merit” but be clear that need must be demonstrated to win the “merit”, as most scholarships require. I’m actually ambivalent about whether colleges should offer merit (lefty tendencies here); however, once a college decides it is going to offer merit (without a need qualifier condition stated), then that college should honor its recruiting sales pitch.</p>
<p>I’m happy to hear that Smith and Scripps apparently take the high road. I’m bleeding from another thread, but I’ll add ethics in recruitment as anothr advantage for women’s colleges :)</p>
<p>
Well it depends on the cost of the school. If the school costs 25,000 then merit aid of 14,000 would reduce the cost to 11,000, so that would be below your EFC. But if the school costs 40,000 then the merit aid of 14,000 would reduce the cost to 26,000 so would not reduce your EFC.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing: if a college is designing a merit program to poach top students, why would any of those students with EFC angst choose the “lesser” merit college instead of an EFC out-of-pocket equivalent “better” college? I don’t think the marginal loans/grants plus no work/study delta is compelling, particularly if one adds in the hard feelings of having been rooked during the recruitment process.</p>
<p>Its a failed program design, except to the extent it relies on hooking students through false advertising.</p>
<p>Cluelessdad you are hardly clueless. Your qoute below is the point I’ve been trying to make through this entire thread. </p>
<h1>1 The kids have EARNED these merit awards base on HS performance and test scores.</h1>
<h1>2 Don’t tell the kid after the fact that a merit award will be rolled into a need package… but still be termed a merit award with a minimun GPA attached.</h1>
<h1>3 It is a bait and switch when a parent’s EFC is cut in half yet his out of pocket costs are not reduced at all because the merit is suddenly use to reduced need.</h1>
<p>“But we need to recognize that merit awards are not charity: the colleges that choose to offer true merit awards are intentionally poaching to boost the top end of their classes. That is what the college intends to buy with its mrit scholarship dollars. So yes, the merit kids have earned those merit awards and shouldn’t be bait and switched out-of-pocket after the college has gotten the benefit of their stronger class profile/student to brag about.”</p>
<p>“#2 Don’t tell the kid after the fact …” Exactly.</p>
<p>LC82, good that Lafayette is upfront spelling out its merit scholarship terms. But as a matter of program design, what does the Marquis program actually add for any family struggling with EFC? Particularly since work/study will, and a loan component may, still be in the mix. I’m not trying to bash Lafayette, just using this as an example of what I think is a program design flaw if the merit program goal is to poach.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t know if Lafayette guarantees meeting need. If not, this is a valuable program that can make the difference in ability to attend.</p>
<p>Of course merit reduces need. How does it make sense any other way? If you have a need and then someone gives you a gift, you don’t have the same need. It’s the need based aid that is charity and charity is always relevant - to need.</p>
<p>^ Well, then colleges advertising merit scholarships should state something along the lines of: “these scholarships are only available to full-pay students” and let EFC stressed families move along to other choices instead of hooking them in to a false offer.</p>
<p>It’s not a false offer. It reduces need - and either a gift or income do indeed reduce need. I would have never expected anything else. Why is this surprising?</p>
<p>Do we have to claim the merit aid or financial aid received by our kids as income? (for tax purposes)</p>
<p>
cluelessdad, I agree with you: Merit awards are not charity. In my example, the “charity” would have been from you to your neighbor – the need-based aid. The merit aid was the other person swooping in to pay your neighbor’s rent because your neighbor is a swell guy. Once the neighbor’s rent is paid, he doesn’t need you to pay his rent, and you’d probably look at him cross-eyed if he asked you to write him that check anyway because he earned the other person’s generosity by being such a swell (ok, smart) guy.
Kids who work have earned their money too. Guess what? It’s factored into their assets when calculating need-based aid. Because, again, need-based aid is a complicated welfare program (to borrow cartera45’s term, which I think is quite accurate) that is designed to make it possible for students to attend a college they can’t afford. Again, by paying the difference between the cost and what the student can afford, using somebody else’s money.</p>
<p>I disagree with you that merit aid is a “false offer.” A poorly understood one, yes, because so many people approach financial aid with an entitlement mentality (TCOA - EFC = what the college is supposed to give me, and let’s argue over that EFC thing while we’re at it). But most colleges seem to apply it to the less desirable (i.e., non-grant) parts of the aid package, so there is still a clear benefit to the student who has a low EFC.</p>
<p>kajon - yes, if it is over the amount of tuition, fees and required expenses - books for example, then it is reported. Any amount for room and board is reported.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They probably shouldn’t choose the “lesser” merit college.</p>
<p>I am aware of a student who received FA packages from need blind schools, supposedly following the same formula, with as much as a 20% difference in expected family contribution. I would argue there are A, B, and C, FA lists at these schools and it depends how much the school wants the student what list the student lands on. I have seen others post similar results on this board. </p>
<p>The same student received several merit awards, a couple from state schools and a few from privates. It took a full tuition merit award to do better on college costs than an FA award from a need blind school. That is just how it works in some cases. </p>
<p>The only way around this is if the college offering less than full tuition merit, is able and willing to raise the award to match a better offer and entice the student to attend that school. This does sometimes happen.</p>
<p>The process is not transparent. But there have been several threads on this in the past which explain it much better than I do here.</p>
<p>Geekmom, first, I wish I could figure out how to use the quotes!</p>
<p>I think the basic difference in opinions on this thread boils down to whether merit awards should be applied before or after a need determination is set, and ultimatly this really just goes to a college’s ethical obligation to be upfront about that.</p>
<p>Call need-based aid welfare if you will; where given, it also reflects a policy decision by colleges that they value meritocracy and the learning community diversity that comes from different walks of life over simple affluence. Let’s recall that these are non-profits dedicated to the betterment of society, and even full-pays are subsidized by their endowments. </p>
<p>Still a clear benefit, yes, but not the advertised benefit, and perhaps not a benefit the top prospect would have applied to pursue with all facts on the table.</p>
<p>And I’m not arguing any college should even offer merit scholarships: they do divert dollars that could fund any number of goals, including more need-based aid.</p>
<p>But a true merit scholarship should reduce the cost of the college that a student would otherwise pay without that merit scholarship. So if a college is going to advertise a merit scholarship as worth $15k, it should either (a) reduce the actual out-of-pocket from what a student who doesn’t win the merit award would pay or (b) be clear upfront that the $15k has strings attached for need-based applicants.</p>
<p>If most on CC are surprised by these merit award nuances, I guarantee you 99% of college applicants are surprised.</p>
<p>It IS a false promise to families who have sized up EFCs and wouldn’t otherwise allow their kid to shortlist that particular “merit award” college, only to discover way too late that the rules ain’t what they seemed.</p>
<p>The point is advance disclosure: colleges that have no intention of reducing EFC with their “merit awards” should be candid about that upfront so families can focus their attention on more affordable colleges or “better” colleges for their EFC dollar as they choose. If “merit award” colleges want to poach top students, they should in fact pay the price to poach.</p>
<p>
Can you show me an example of a college “advertising” that merit awards are determined after, and in addition to, need-based awards, where this turns out to be untrue on further investigation?</p>
<p>I think you’re mistaking an assumption (albeit a natural one) on the part of the consumer for a promise on the part of the college.</p>
<p>About the quotes: it’s [“quote”]quoted text[“/quote”]. Just remove the quotation marks.</p>
<p>clueless - here is the link to quotes, bold, italics, etc</p>
<p>[College</a> Confidential - BB Code List](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode]College”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/misc.php?do=bbcode)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It varies by college. So we ought to be clear about the policies and practices of specific schools, or groups of schools, before getting too indignant about ethical obligations, bait-and-switch, etc.</p>
<p>I think you’ll find that in many cases, schools do not have a clear policy, at least not one that is clearly publicized. Surely, every school would like to be need-blind, committed to covering 100% of demonstrated need, and be so popluar that it has no need to offer “merit” scholarships to attract top students. Very few schools realize all those desires. So they try to cope with their resources, market positions, and applicant pools as best they can. All these factors are more or less in flux, so it may not be in the school’s interest to state a policy too clearly or commit to it too firmly.</p>