Along the lines of this article and discussion…
I just finished reading “Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream”. The main focus of the book is soaring college costs and the students on the lowest rungs of the SES ladder. Even if these students have full tuition (or a very low EFC), it often isn’t enough*. So many of them have to help their families or have a child or two of their own to support. They may start off working 15 hours a week on top of a full course load, and holding it together, but before long they end up working 20, 30, even 40 hours a week. Those hours are detrimental to their studies. They can’t keep up. They turn in stuff late or miss classes, even regularly fall asleep in class. They drop classes or go part-time without much, if any, understanding as to how it will affect their Pell Grants or other aid. Drop out rates are extremely high, and many are left with loans and no degree.
So the author’s implication is that these students would be more successful, more likely to graduate and graduate on time or sooner if they were given some sort of personal stipend in addition to full tuition. She advocates getting rid of all merit aid in favor of need based aid. Personally I think both those ideas are political non-starters (publics don’t necessarily give merit aid as it is, but those that do are using it to move up in the rankings) although a few of her other ideas could be workable.
Anyway, it ties into the idea that there is a lot more to success or failure than the quality of the school.
*Most of the students discussed in the book lived at home while attending college. “Room and board” scholarships didn’t get as much coverage, but the basic rule still applied that if a student works more than 15-20 hours, his/her studies are much more likely to be impacted.