<p>I know several students who turned down relatively large ($15-20k) merit awards from "lesser" schools (Wooster, Case, Skidmore) in favor of full-freight at higher ranked LACs. Also, one boy who declined full-ride from Trinity to attend Amherst w/ no finaid or merit$.</p>
<p>Paying full tuition wouldn't and didn't throw the family into a fin tailspin, but each family would have happily pocked the savings, had the offer come from a sch closer to the one at which the student ultimately enrolled (of course, the students weren't at the tippy-top of the app pool at those schs).</p>
<p>Merit aide helps the families that need that help. MINE. Both kids recieved alot of dollars to attend the schools they are. If money isn't an issue then merit isn't going to matter. When it is, merit really helps.</p>
<p>"Being that Princeton is literally swimming in money, it's seems like their no-loan policy is warranted."</p>
<p>They don't give away money "out of the goodness of their hearts". Their market analysis likely showed them that they could lose more than a few accepted applicants to the Emories and Vanderbilts of the world who offer signficant merit aid, and by offering "non-merit merit aid" (exactly what Richmond did) they could keep some of them. Works, too. </p>
<p>"But the point of merit aid is to increase yield among the most qualified students."</p>
<p>No, not necessarily. The point of merit aid may be to increase INCOME from students most able to pay close to, but not quite, full freight. Why offer one highly qualifed low-income Pell Grantee $45k a year when you can get nine qualified relatively high-income students for $5k a year, and who will thus add almost $1.5 million to the bottom line? (and they'll think they got a good deal, because there were no loans?)</p>
<p>$40k X 4 years x 9 students = $1,440,000. Discount was $5k x 4 years x 9 students = $180k. HOWEVER, the $180k is more than covered by tuition increases over four years. By taking the low-income student, there was a net loss of $180k. By taking the 9 higher income students, there is a gain of $1,440,000. The total potential gain from this strategy is $1.62 million. (that's why they call it "enrollment management".)</p>
<p>You don't add 1.5 million. What you do get is different students, maybe.</p>
<p>The math comes out the same.</p>
<p>"Why offer one highly qualifed low-income Pell Grantee $45k a year when you can get nine qualified relatively high-income students for $5k a year, and who will thus add almost $1.5 million to the bottom line? (and they'll think they got a good deal, because there were no loans?)"</p>
<p>One person offered $45,000 is the same as offering 9 people $5,000.</p>
<p>Are you comparing giving 9 people $45.000 vs 9 people getting $5,000?</p>
<p>It's a gain over taking 9 lower-income students, or having the no-merit aid merit aid students turn you down, and ending up with low-income ones. </p>
<p>Another way to look at it is you have $180k to "spend" (it's not really "spending" but discount, but all right). You can spend it all one one highly qualified low-income student, or on 9 highly qualified top quintile ones. If you spend it on the top quintile ones, you may prevent them from going to Emory, and increase your yield, and maintain your prestige. If you lose the one low-income one, it ain't any big deal.</p>
<p>We don't, of course, know their motives. We can, however, see how they behave.</p>
<p>"But the athletes are there to bring attention and money to the institution, so that people like your daughter can reap the benefits of the top-notch academics. It's a price that must be paid."</p>
<pre><code>I'd be willing to bet that even in a lacrosse hotbed like the Maryland-Virginia area, the sport doesn't operate in the black. At most schools, only football and men's basketball actually operate at a profit. The rest, including almost all the women's sports, drain money from the athletic coffers.
As far as lacrosse bringing attention goes, I would say that varies greatly. The most "famous" lacrosse team in the nation, after all, is probably Duke, and we all know how that happened.
My point is, your incompetent student tour guide, despite his lacrosse prowess, probably was not pulling his weight in terms of UVa's overall financial picture. Therefore, I feel, it's perfectly proper to feel that academic-based merit scholarships are justified.
</code></pre>
<p>
[quote]
If money isn't an issue then merit isn't going to matter.
[/quote]
It certainly <em>can</em> matter.</p>
<p>Money is not an issue for us. But a merit aid offer gives a student like my S the sense that he is valued strongly as a potential member of the incoming class. Merit offers have absolutely caused him to take very careful looks at the schools that have offered them to him, and is raising them in his estimation. After all, if they want him that much, maybe he wants to be there!</p>
<p>We also know URichmond's behavior, and it is not what you suggest. Look at the CDS which show spending on need and non-need scholarships/grants before and after the tuition increase.</p>
<p>2004
$16.4 million need based
$7.9 million non-need based</p>
<p>2005
$19.6 million need based (19.5% increase)
$8.7 million non-need based (10.1% increase)</p>
<p>Why construct hypotheticals when real numbers are available? I don't see where URichmond is making the trade off you suggest.</p>
<p>Opie, I agree with Mootmom. First of all, even if a family can afford full tuition and wouldn't qualify for financial aid, the majority of those families would benefit from money saved on college expenses. As Mootmom and others (including myself) have pointed out, there is more to a merit scholarship than a certain number of dollars. I chose my school in large part because of the merit scholarship I was offered, even though my parents would have paid full ticket price had I not gotten one.</p>
<p>"But a merit aid offer gives a student like my S the sense that he is valued strongly as a potential member of the incoming class"</p>
<p>But w/o the merit offer, does it rule the school completely out of the question? Yes, everybody wants to feel wanted, but if you're going to attend abc university anyway, the merit doesn't matter, it just offers a discount. </p>
<p>For those of us who can't or won't drop $160,000 for a college education for a child, the merit offers allow us to consider the small LAC or University against mega state u. In fact the merit offers made the small LAC's affordable OVER the state mega U's. It became actually cheaper to attend a $140,000 and $160,000 private schools than to attend state U's at $40-50 in cost. After merit offers the two privates carry about $15,000 in unmet cost and the states carry around $35-45.000 in unmet costs. </p>
<p>That's where merit matters beyond making someone feel good. Merit creates a situation where a kid(s) can attend a small LAC below the costs of state u. Which would be more critical about merit awards, with no offense intended... Feeling good about an offer or even considering the school that made the offer would be off the radar without it?</p>
<p>"even though my parents would have paid full ticket price had I not gotten one."</p>
<p>Well, you have exceptional parents. You still missed the point. Merits matter most to those who wouldn't or couldn't consider a university because of cost. There's a difference. Ever been hungry in your life, not by choice? There's a difference. </p>
<p>No disrespect meant to any who enjoy the offers, we all do. But understand for some, the offers are more important as it creates an opportunity to be more than before. Which is more important?</p>
<p>Opie: "Merit creates a situation where a kid(s) can attend a small LAC below the costs of state u. Which would be more critical about merit awards, with no offense intended... "</p>
<p>I think I understand what you're saying here, but could you clarify? I can't imagine you're actually saying what I think you are with the above (last part) of that statement.</p>
<p>Of course for some the offers create an opportunity that wouldn't exist otherwise. Did I imply otherwise? No. I took exception to your statement that merit offers "aren't going to matter" if money isn't an issue. That's incorrect. They might not matter in the <em>same way</em> but they matter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But w/o the merit offer, does it rule the school completely out of the question? Yes, everybody wants to feel wanted, but if you're going to attend abc university anyway, the merit doesn't matter, it just offers a discount.
[/quote]
Even if the school wouldn't be out of the question without the merit aid, it can still have an impact. That impact does matter.
[quote]
Merits matter most to those who wouldn't or couldn't consider a university because of cost.
[/quote]
They may matter most--but that's not what you originally said. You stated that merit doesn't matter to families who can afford full price. That is incorrect. It has an impact, and it does matter.</p>
<p>EDIT: Ah, I cross-posted. I agree with Mootmom. Also, Opie, I do not believe asking me whether I've ever gone hungry is appropriate for this discussion.</p>
<p>I'm one of the families that will pay full price if my d wants to go to a school that doesn't give merit aid. That doesn't mean that we can "afford" it as if we were just going out to dinner. (In fact, going out to dinner is probably off the table for the foreseeable future if we're paying full price.) We are paying a financial cost by making that decision. We've spoken about it, and as a family we made the decision to pay regardless. However, our lives would be easier if my d chooses a school that gives her merit aid. </p>
<p>Don't assume that just because we're willing to pay full price that it is without pain and without sacrifice.</p>
<p>"I've ever gone hungry is appropriate for this discussion"</p>
<p>Yes, it is. It's about perspective. It's easy to say "I'd do this or that", when the possibly of actually being stuck in that position in life isn't going to happen. </p>
<p>"I can't imagine you're actually saying what I think you are with the above (last part) of that statement"</p>
<p>The point is without the merit aid offers, some choices would be completely off the table to kids. There's a difference surrounding the situation, I guess hope and no hope. I guess it's I hope I get merit aid because it will help with costs to go to LAC vs. If I don't get a merit award it's out of the question. To whom is it more important? </p>
<p>"They might not matter in the <em>same way</em> but they matter."</p>
<p>Spot on. I'm not always the best at giving examples. </p>
<p>"You stated that merit doesn't matter to families who can afford full price"</p>
<p>If no merit is a deal breaker, it matters, if no merit is not a problem, it doesn't matter because you're still willing to pay full price.</p>
<p>You don't like it (who would?) but you're not willing to walk away from the deal either. </p>
<p>"Don't assume that just because we're willing to pay full price that it is without pain and without sacrifice."</p>
<p>Never did say that. I said who does it matter more to? I never said you like putting $160,000 up for four years. But I did say for some merit creates possibilities where none existed previously. For those who are willing to provide the means, even begrudginly, it's a bit different. You don't like it but you'll do it. For others it never gets to the point where they can consider even disliking paying.</p>
<p>Some supporters of need-based only aid systems argue that merit aid "gives money to families that can already afford to pay anyway."</p>
<p>I guess they never bought used books, used cars, or shoes on sale. I mean, why buy a two-year old Chevrolet Impala when you can afford a brand new one? Why save hundreds on textbooks when you know you can buy all new copies? Why settle for last season's shoe style when you could get this season's?</p>
<p>Yeah, there's a lot of things I could do with my money. Does that I mean do them? NO.</p>
<p>Based on my experience, the families who benefit most from merit-based aid are middle-class families who are not poor enough to qualify for need-based aid but aren't rich enough to pay without caring.</p>
<p>I'll never forget what happened when my dad and I joked around with the EFC calculator. Back when we lived in a different state, our income was so low that had I been accepted to Columbia or Harvard, my tuition would have been zero. As expected, my EFC was only around 5,000 or so. Then we realized that we miscounted our assets. A minute later, that EFC estimate tripled to 15,000.</p>
<p>I forgot which parent said it, and I have to paraphrase, but I nevertheless give thanks to the original author.</p>
<p>"The irony of college savings is that families who save get NOTHING in financial aid and families with prodigal spending habits get their educations paid for in full."</p>
<p>As a postscript, I find that most supporters of need-based only aid systems are bleeding heart liberals who happen not to like communist countries. This is quite a hypocritical belief as need-based aid is Marxist...</p>
<p>I think we have a simple misunderstanding, perhaps. Mootmom and I objected to your original statement that merit scholarships do not matter if a family has the ability/willingness to pay full price. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mootmom, but I think both of us were recognizing that merit scholarships do impact the decision, whether it is because the cost is lessened in comparison to another school or because it shows that the school really wants that applicant or for another reason altogether. You are saying it doesn't matter to people who can afford full price because the family would still pay for the school; I am saying it does matter because it effects whether the student will actually choose the school. It matters for both, as Mootmom said, in different ways, but it still matters.
[quote]
It's easy to say "I'd do this or that", when the possibly of actually being stuck in that position in life isn't going to happen.
[/quote]
I don't think I made any statement to this effect.</p>