I’m not confusing UK with UNC, trust me :). But if you decide that UK = where you go if your parents have enough money vs. directionals = where you go if your parents don’t have enough money, doesn’t serve the state well, and want to return to the model of UK = where you go if you are among the top-performing students in the state regardless of parents’ income, then switching to a 65% need-based/35% merit-based sounds about right.
Granting money for ACT 25-27 is not going to help UK. That’s what directionals should do.
Granting money for all top-performing students in the State regardless of parents’ financial status (65%) while attracting truly high-performing students with special scholarships (35%) sounds in line with the fact public universities are meant to serve their state and the common good. If UK, say, only grants money for scores 30+, it’ll still attract top students in the state and it’ll still be better for them.
Truthfully, if your son scored a 25 on the ACT in the 7th grade, his place is likely not at UK. They’re building up their Honors College, but it’s still not reached what Oklahoma or Alabama have done with theirs, and it’s very far from LSA Honors or ASU Barrett or PSU Schreyer. (I’m assuming you’re a donut hole family that has money for college, but nowhere near what’s required to pay their EFC).
What if they have info which indicates kids will given stats with no financial need tend to stay/graduate and kids with the same stats and unmet need are dropping out?
You’re making the assumption need based aid will only go to the top performing students. If they wanted the truly top performing students in the state, they would just add more Presidential, Commonwealth, and Singletary scholarships. It seems just as possible the money could end up going to poor, dumb students with sub 25 ACTs.
For in-state students, this is probably true. For OOS students, there’s more to it. It’s possible UK could view OOS students as a profit center, even after offering many of them some scholarships and a lot of them might not have enrolled without some discount off the sticker price.
It is also possible that the money could go to good but not top end students from lower to middle income families, who would displace the current lower end students from upper income families, while good but not top end students from upper income families see a loss of the small scholarships they get now.
In the Kentucky context, “top end” would be 3.50 / 31 or better or National Merit status to compete for the full tuition scholarships, while “good but not top end” would be 3.30 / 26 or better but not 3.50 / 31 or better, which currently gets the small scholarships.
I doubt you would see much displacement. UK would just grow the size of their undergraduate class instead, so their median stats wouldn’t change much, if at all under your scenario. UK needs donations to grow its endowment too badly to be turning away upper income families.
are first affected by students’ HS GPA and financial status.
UK takes the top students in the state. Until now, top students whose parents didn’t make enough money couldn’t attend. Not efficient when you know lower middle and middle class students are those who benefit the most from attending a college such as a flagship.
Top students from rural kentucky won’t have the same credentials as top students from Glenview. But they’re just as smart if they did the best they could with the resources provided to them and became top students within the context of their community - and students from Glenview can probably afford to go elsewhere if they don’t have the stats for merit-based aid at UK.
So, basically, be a top student and you’ll get into UK.
If you’re a flagship-worthy student from the working class or middle class, you’ll receive financial aid.
If you don’t qualify for need-based aid and are deemed able to pay the roughly 20K it costs in-state, you can still qualify for discounts if you have good test scores - and the higher your test scores, the less you’ll pay.
The difference with now is that the many, many small scholarships won’t be given anymore, and switched back to Kentucky residents who need it to attend their own flagship university.
UK has the worst 6 year graduation rates in the SEC. It’s slightly worse that both Mississippi schools and Arkansas. It has the 4th highest in-state tuition +fees rate (behind UT-Knoxville, USC-Columbia, and UGA). Yet it’s 4th in the % of Freshman awarded Pell Grants (behind Mississippi State, UT-Knoxville and UF), {using 2014 data}
If they have determine that cost is the number one issue causing low graduation rates and retention rates (and that is their belief), then they have to address the issue. Since they have to work with their current budget/funding, the only substantial funds available for need-based aid, will have to come from merit-based aid.
They can (and I’m sure will) look for additional funding, but other than raising tuition, the only real source of additional income would be from state approbations, and private gifts/grants.
They really don’t have much of an option.
If UA can’t get it’s graduation rates up over 70%, they also will have to make adjustments. It’s hard to be a top 25 public university, when you can’t graduate a third of your freshman.
For some perspective, these are some of the graduation rates in 2002 (before UA and UK significantly increased merit based aid):
UGA: 70.3%
UA: 62.8%
USC-Columbia: 59.8%
UT-Knoxville: 57.9%
UK: 57.7%
U of Arkansas: 45.6%
In 2014:
UGA: 83.7%
UA: 65.7%
USC-Columbia: 73.0%
UT-Knoxville: 69.3%
UK: 60.2%
U of Arkansas: 62.3%
Whatever is the secret to raising graduation rates, it doesn’t seem to be merit based aid.
Students who fail to graduate are likely to be in the bottom end of the school’s academic range, or those who have affordability problems at the school. Unless the merit aid brings in enough top-end students that the school can raise its selectivity at the bottom end, it is unlikely to help graduation rates. For the financial drop outs, the merit aid only helps those who happen to be in the top-end academically (which is only a small percentage for those who need full tuition or more for affordability).
University of Alabama may have unintentionally replicated what HYP was like in the 1950s, where the some students were top-end ones academically, while the rest are mainly from high SES families but not particularly strong academically.
“Truthfully, if your son scored a 25 on the ACT in the 7th grade, his place is likely not at UK”
And see, that is really the most important point. UK and the state of Kentucky can not afford to let that be the case. It is way more critical to Kentucky’s economy that these kids stay. More critical than whether every 25 ACT kid gets to go where the dorm rooms have granite countertops, whether his parents can afford it or not.
If one is a good student, and on scholarship at college, it seems a little bit unlikely that, with family financial support, that student is not going to complete their college education. Did I worry about the graduation percentages at UA or related schools? No.
I do know students that have lost scholarships (drug/alcohol, didn’t know how to study/make the transition to college) - that happens lots of places. Some students don’t do well the first or first two semesters and the parents yank them home until they mature as a person or as a student.
Which is more critical for Kentucky’s (or any state’s) future?
A. The “elite” students from upper income families.
B. The good-but-not-“elite” students from lower and middle income families.
Group A will probably graduate from some college, whether or not in Kentucky. Group B has limited (if any) affordable four year college options and is at higher risk of dropping out due to financial reasons. From a state policy standpoint, would merit aid for group A or need-based aid for group B be more helpful to increase the state’s future level of educational attainment and its economic prospects and tax revenues?
Mostly I liked how you framed this up @ucbalumnus. Here is my take though on the last part:
Which is more critical for Kentucky’s (or any state’s) future?
A. The “elite” students from upper income families.
B. The good-but-not-“elite” students from lower and middle income families.
Group A will probably graduate from some college, whether or not in Kentucky. The COA at the state flagship isn’t affordable for Group B and therefore they are at higher risk of dropping out due to financial reasons. The public directionals are potentially more affordable options for Group B, at 70% of the COA of the flagship and with merit awards for 25 and above ACT. From a state policy standpoint, should the state flagship spend limited resources on giving merit aid for group A, or would need-based aid for group B at the state flagship be more helpful to increase the state’s future level of educational attainment and its economic prospects and tax revenues?
The highest SES kids are the most likely to leave any state.
UK does have a strong Alumni base, so it will always have it’s share of in-state high SES kids.
Another way to look at it, a lot of kids at expensive in-state private schools, are not in the top 25% or 50% of their class. They could go out of state and attend a not so selective private/public school, or they could go to UK, join their parents fraternity/sorority and attend UK basketball games…
Kentucky will still offer merit aid so there will still be smart kids there. There are not a lot of details at this point but they may well have somewhat smaller award packages.
How many kids who are getting merit awards are staying in Kentucky after graduation? If you are subsidizing kids who are leaving the state, you aren’t necessarily benefiting the state other than limited value in improving the rep of the university with more high ability kids. How much is that worth?
Which is more critical for Kentucky’s (or any state’s) future?
A. The “elite” (3.5 UW GPA, 31 ACT or better) students, most but not all from upper income families.
B. The good-but-not-“elite” (3.3 UW GPA, 26 or better) students from lower and middle income families.
Group A will probably graduate from some college, whether or not in Kentucky. The COA at the state flagship isn’t affordable for Group B and therefore they are at higher risk of dropping out due to financial reasons. The public directionals are potentially more affordable options for Group B, at 70% of the COA of the flagship and with merit awards for 26 and above ACT. From a state policy standpoint, should the state flagship spend limited resources on giving merit aid for group A, or would need-based aid for group B at the state flagship be more helpful to increase the state’s future level of educational attainment and its economic prospects and tax revenues?
This is very interesting and I agree it is odd that they could be moving away from Merit aid. @LOUKYDAD I think option A is most helpful. It would just seem like a win-win. The school gets higher incoming freshman stats and they potentially have a more financially secure alumni who can donate. The sad reality is that higher income students generally have better stats (for a variety of reasons) than less affluent students. To consciously lower aid to them and send them elsewhere is very odd and seems like a strange way to run an admissions office.
It is very interesting. I think the way @ucbalumnus framed this up really cuts through to the heart of the issue, and makes for a very interesting debate.
Personally I agree with you @MassDaD68. I think that while both are critical issues that have to be addressed, and that prioritizing merit aid at the flagship would produce the optimal result for the state.
I kind of want to start a new thread to hear more debate on this. Is that allowed? Any objections?
UK has had a VERY generous offer on the table for several years now that has (successfully) gotten the school the attention of a lot of families shopping for affordable options.
Automatic (!) full tuition plus room and board stipend (effectively a full ride) to all NMFs and National Hispanic Scholars.
It seems to me there’s a LOT of room to dial back the free merit money (ex: full tuition awards, 3/4 or 1/2 tuition awards) and shift resources to need-based aid while still being able to offer packages to high stats kids that are attractive and price-competitive.
If we had been offered full tuition only, and not the full ride, UK’s offer would still be one of the best offers on the table for us. Still way more affordable than full pay at UIUC.
Keep siphoning off those Illinois kids! Great long term business plan for UK!
