@Sybylla My understanding is that Bama’s scholarships are not funded by taxpayers. At least one source of revenue is from the athletic dept.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/sports/ncaafootball/alabama-crimson-tide-football-marketing.html?_r=0
“Last year, the athletic department recorded a $33 million profit, according to university documents. It gave $9.1 million to the university, including $4 million for the university’s Presidential Scholarships, which go to top-performing students.”
I don’t see where it says the scholarships are automatic, and in any case, for in-state residents, $1,500/year isn’t much, even when going to a state school.
^ It’s really hard to match revenues with expenditures, though. At most publics now, state support is so small that you can shift it all to one specific pot (say, faculty and staff salaries) and then you can say with a straight face that no taxpayer money is spent on OOS scholarships. But in the case of the 'Bama football revenues, for instance, it’s not like they light all that money on fire if they don’t spend it on merit scholarships; the football money would be directed to fin aid or to hire more profs, etc., so spending it on merit scholarships means less fin aid or spending on salaries (or those areas would have to be covered by taxpayer funding or other sources).
@roethliger: that’s the point - the small merit scholarships are likely to go because they don’t bring in anybody they really want and probably cover quite a few residents or non residents - the residents would be covered by need based aid if necessary and the non residents would have to have higher stats to get scholarships.
Bama doesn’t fund its merit from taxpayers.
That split is currently 90 percent in favor of non-need-based aid. By 2021, the university hopes to skew it largely the other way, to be 65 percent need-based aid. <<<
[/QUOTE]
Is any of that 10% of need based grants from Pell Grants?
The most important rating to increase one’s ranking as a research U is underscored by…RESEARCH. Specifically original research/publications by the Profs and grad students.
This isn’t affected very much by whether the undergrad college(s) admit higher stat kids or not…even if one assumes they will all be involved in undergrad research(Not all will be involved and of those that would be, the vast majority are unlikely to produce research/publications of the quality/degree necessary to impact those rankings.
They’d get far more bang for the buck by poaching topflight academic talent with proven track records of research/publications from other institutions which would also serve to draw more topflight grad students whose publications/dissertations will make a bit of difference. And even then, it’ll be a long slog due to the competition from its peers and more elite institutions.
I know this may not be what some upper-middle class parents who are hoping to get merit money for their kids may want to hear, but that’s how most research Us view the situation.
It’s also underscored by how tenure-track faculty are evaluated when it comes time to be considered for tenure/promotions. Research/publications come at the very top of the list. Don’t have enough/any of that despite excellent teaching awards ot university service…sorry…unlikely to get tenure/promotion not only at most research Us barring exceptional and insidious forms of nepotism/internal politics, but even some elite LACs*.
The role of the state flagship (UK) versus the other public universities in the state (Western K, Eastern K, Northern K, Morehead State, Murray State) came to mind as I read the comments of UK officials. Everyone of the directionals has a significantly lower cost of attendance than UK I believe. 70% or even lower compared to UK. Shouldn’t the kids who have an unmet financial need be steered towards the lower cost options already available if they have unmet financial need?
As you read the comments of the provost and the president on this subject about UK’s mission to the citizens of Kentucky, they would seem to be imagining UK is the only available option, when in reality that isn’t the case at all.
UK as the flagship should see its place differently than the other publics in the state, as a research U and an engine for economic development, bringing high tech and other industries to the state. Companies want to locate in a state where they will have access to the best and the brightest. This move is not going to be helpful in this regard.
<<<
The most important rating to increase one’s ranking as a research U is underscored by…RESEARCH. Specifically original research/publications by the Profs and grad students.
<<<
Univ of Kentucky has a med school and is the agriculture land grant school . Both of those typically mean more research dollars than another state’s flagship that doesn’t have those two things.
@LOUKYDAD: the idea is to steer students toward the institution matching their abilities, not their parents’ finances. This is what American universities used to be about until about 10 years ago. They’re prioritizing state residents, which makes sense. This also used to be what American universities used to be about.
Research shows that students who come from lower income backgrounds benefit the most from being among academic peers and are more likely to graduate if they study at institutions that 1° meet their financial need and 2° surrounds them by equally bright kids.
Steering top students away from UK does the opposite. It leads to needless waste of talent and money.
Essentially, they want Kentucky to be a meritocracy - if you achieve the level necessary for UK, you get to go there.
If you come from outside Kentucky and want to go there, you’ll need to demonstrate what you bring to the table; if you don’t bring money, you’ll need to bring higher stats.
BTW that’s also how Alabama works: OOS scholarships aren’t the same as instate ones, and 32 ACT is top 2% so an OOS student who currently scores a 25 wouldn’t have much incentive to attend UA, just like they shouldn’t be the focus of scholarships at UK.
TLDR info is below, for those that like charts and graphs!
UK and UA are similar in that most institutional aid is given in merit based aid, and they are both struggling with low graduation and retention rates.
Most of UK’s and UA’s revenue for undergraduate education comes from tuition revenue.
As they increase merit-based scholarship funding, they have to increase tuition to fund it.
This increase in tuition, makes the schools less and less affordable for lower income students who don’t qualify for the merit scholarships. This price pressure leads to greater student attrition, which impacts graduation and retention rates…
By spending a significant amount of your budget on merit (or need-based) aid, you also limit how much is available for other items like faculty, but that’s a discussion for another day…
TLDR info:
The University of Alabama, another school know for merit, has a similar problem. Low graduation and retention rates, and a lot of cost pressure on middle to low income (in-state) students.
Last year (based on the CDS), UA spent $47.8 Million on institutional Need-based aid, and over $100 Million on Non-need-based (merit) aid. This excludes athletic aid, Federal (Pell, etc.) and State aid. The $4 million helps, but we shouldn’t describe UA aid as being “funded” significantly by the Athletics department.
Keeping in mind that money is fungible, the majority of UA’s revenues come from tuition and fees. Hence the majority of funding for the need-based and merit based aid is from tuition. UA can claim no state funds are used for merit based scholarships, but if you use state funds for X, that frees up other funds for Y (in this case, financial aid).
UK’s budget is similar to UA’s, with the addition of it’s hospital.
Table 4 shows the budget breakdown. Keep in mind that most of the “Designated General Funds” is for the hospital operations, research, etc., and not undergraduate education. Most of that funding comes from the “Undesignated General Funds” (Tuition and state appropriations).
Page 11 touches on that fact.
Of the $38 Million in undesignated general funds revenue, $32.4 comes from tuition. Of this, $15.2 M will be spent on Scholarships.
Keep in mind that this document is put out by the university, and they are (naturally) spinning the numbers. Chart 8 is a perfect example. It’s only looking at Net Price as tuition and fees. If they looked at total cost of attendance, the numbers for lower income students would be very different.
The issues UA and UK have with graduation and retention rates aren’t new. They precede the beginning of the merit rat race as they are calling it. Personally I would expect it to get worse as they lose the high achieving students who were there because of merit money.
No intension to hijack the thread. But is the shift at UK and the recent discussion of free in-state tuition at SUNY and URI a trend?
What such a policy means is that the flagship becomes accessible mainly for students from wealthy families and top-end students (those who get the largest merit scholarships). Since the latter are only a small portion of the overall enrollment, the state university spaces tend to be allocated by family income and wealth, rather than merit (other than those getting the largest merit scholarships). I.e. most from middle and lower income families are limited to their local universities (or run out of money if they try to attend the unaffordable flagship), while those from upper income families have much more of a choice of state universities.
Even if UK began to shift the big merit awards away from full tuition plus room and board stipend (extremely generous) to full tuition only or half tuition, it still puts UK in the running for Illinois kids (for example) who are looking for a big public flagship “nearby” that is price competitive. UIUC, if you can get in, is an expensive in-state option.
We know plenty of people who send their Chicago area kids to Iowa, or MIZZOU, and without big merit packages! Why not UK? Lexington is lovely, and it’s a short flight from LEX to ORD. UK has its hospital right there on campus, just like Iowa, good for those interested in health fields.
The new facilities at UK make a big positive impression on visitors and frankly it makes some other Midwest flagships look sort of dumpy and out-dated.
We always understood the big merit packages at UK (and Bama for that matter) to be part of the long term business plan for the schools and not a forever thing. And again, the merit aid doesn’t have to be full ride to make UK (and Bama) a price competitve option, for Illinois kids at least.
^^ Very true. When we first looked at Bama for my daughter who has now graduated from there, the OOS tuition at Bama was only about $1000 more than in-state tuition at UIUC for my daughter’s major (there’s a large surcharge at UIUC for business, engineering and a few other majors). Alabama has raised tuition quite a bit since then so this is no longer the case, but it is still a difference that a one-third to one-half tuition scholarship can make up for.
I’d like to throw University of North Texas into the pot of schools that are offering very nice National Merit Scholarships. A finalist can get a full-ride: “tuition and fees, housing, a meal plan and includes a personal stipend.” UNT is in Denton, Texas --about 35 miles north of Dallas/Ft. Worth. I think they have rolling admissions—so kids who haven’t found a spot yet this might be an option.
“The new facilities at UK make a big positive impression on visitors”
They do. There’s a lot of walking in the visit, but UK made parking and getting from the garage to the welcome center easier than any other big school I’ve visited in the last 3 years. For families doing comparative visits, it makes a difference. And what a gorgeous library!
Unfortunately, it is not that difficult to be price competitive with in-state UIUC rates.
“Essentially, they want Kentucky to be a meritocracy - if you achieve the level necessary for UK, you get to go there.”
@MYOS1634 I think you are imagining that we are talking about UM (Michigan), UVA or UNC. We are talking about the University of Kentucky with an average ACT of about 25 and a 75th percentile of only 28. Both are lower than just about every other flagship in the South or Midwest (however you want to classify KY).
They want to raise these stats supposedly, and they need to raise them. Higher performing students from the state need a in-state option that is a “fit” for them. To be in classes that move at their pace and not at the pace of someone with a 25 ACT, the score my S received in the 7th grade for Duke TIP before completing a high school math class.
As pitiful as these stats are, the other public in-state publics are worse. This should not be the average for a state flagship. UK is the best in-state option high achieving KY students have, and now it will be going the wrong direction. The new direction in financial aid is certainly not going to drive these stats higher. It will have the opposite impact.
Not to mention that the stats they are trying to change with these policies (graduation and retention rates) I imagine are very strongly correlated to incoming test scores. The higher the ability of the student, the more likely they are to stay and graduate. If that is what you want to move, I don’t see these changes moving the needle the right direction.