@Midwest67 “LOT of room”. That is the big question. Where that price-point is is what UK will have to figure out. One looks to what UoA has been able to accomplish over the years by offering generous awards to top students and one has to wonder why more schools do not follow. As we know, many schools have taken notice and they themselves have tried to boost merit aid to get the brightest students. I find it strange that UK would walk away from this philosophy.
More schools do not follow because not every state legislature or every chancellor/head of higher ed in a state shares Alabama’s philosophy.
There is a considerable amount of research being conducted now which shows that-- so far- increasing merit aid at the state flagship ends up subsidizing rich kids at the expense of poor kids. A study which I can’t cite right now which quoted professors having to trudge past the student parking lot after work- filled with fancy cars- on their way to the faculty lot which was filled with beat up Toyota’s. Quoting upper middle class parents who were delighted to get a “scholarship”, and really didn’t spend much time thinking about the fact that although they could have afforded to be fully pay, they’d rather get the scholarship and buy the kid a car, nice spring break vacation, etc.
What does this do to the needy families instate who cannot afford the flagship because the aid is being directed to those who need it the least?
Alabamans (Alabamians?) have opted for one method. Why should the waitress at the local diner be subsidizing affluent families via her state taxes to attend a college which her kids cannot afford in any way shape or form?
There are fundamental issues of equity and access here.
I’m not following why your conclusion is they are walking away from this philosophy.
If UK simply stopped offering the room and board stipend as part of the automatic Patterson Scholarship, and followed Bama’s lead of full tuition only, that frees up almost $10K per award given that could go towards, say, need-based aid.
ah. Apparently I am wrong then. Sorry. I was under the impression that Alabama gave full tuition plus room/board. My mistake.
You’re not mis-remembering 100%!
It’s a little more complicated than “full tuition” only. Bama has a great package for NMF, more than full tuition, not pure full ride, lots of perks.
Any one who has taken the time to look over the Automatic Full Tuition links will notice that schools move the goal post, up the test scores to qualify, dial back the awards, change the rules…slightly or dramatically with time.
UK grad here, but my two never gave UK a thought in their college decisions and they faired better in financial aid at their private university despite leaving their KEES money behind… For those interested, don’t forget that in addition to the merit aid that will remain, in state students will be eligible for that KEES money based on high school performance to help foot the bill.
Current climate on higher education from our state’s administration is not friendly. Lt. Gov. gave an interview to a college newspaper at a regional school in spring '16 and said she paid for her education and saw no reason for her to subsidize the education of the current college generation. As a state, we are shifting to performance based funding and the colleges here will be looking to garner students who can contribute to improvement in those yet-to-be finalized performance measures.
I had discussion with the a person that handles National Merit at UT Dallas and he was very upfront with the fact that they compare their National Merit and other merit based scholarships to those offered at other colleges and tweak their scholarships as needed to stay competitive.
@Midwest67 wrote:
Yes! This is more the model used at another SEC school, U of South Carolina. Offer substantial merit (in-state tuition plus anywhere from $500-$10,000 add’l per year) to high stats kids. Offer only a small number (20 in-state and 20 OOS) of full/nearly full rides. Kids from Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey will view $15,000-$24,000/year as a bargain compared to UIUC, Penn State/Pitt, and Rutgers. Strong students from Ohio, Connecticut, New York, etc. get a price that’s competitive with their own state universities for a highly regarded public Honors College, nice weather, and good sports. Public U’s don’t have to be free (or close to it) to attract strong students.
@LuckyCharms913 . They might not have to be free but they need to make it worthwhile for these OOS kids to attend.
I started a new thread with @ucbalumnus question . Expect more may participate in the larger philosophical discussion which isn’t KY specific.
<<
while those from upper income families have much more of a choice of state universities.
<<
That’s always going to be, no matter what.
A high stats low income student can do well at his flagship with a free tuition award. A Pell Grant, student loan, work study and some summer earnings can often cover the rest.
I think that some argue that the low income “good student” with “good stats” should be able to go to the flagship as well with lots of funds. Well, there’s usually not enough seats anyway. The top 2 UC’s (the “flagships” of Calif) aren’t accepting “good students” with “good stats” because their seats are full of students with 4.X GPAs and strong/high test scores. The 3.5 student with the 26 ACT isn’t going to be accepted unless he/she is a desired athlete/talent. The more typical 3.5 low income Calif student is going to be going to a CSU and not have need met either.
I think some people are confusing UK, with Duke or some other school with much higher economic status. I would bet the typical recipient of the $1500 in-state Provost scholarship comes from families in the $50k-150k income bracket. So one of these typical “rich kids” might have a household income of $100k.
Not just the top two. Applicants from our high school in Southern California have to have a GPA over 4.0 to be admitted to Cal, UCLA, UCSD, Davis, and Irvine. Santa Cruz will take applicants with a GPA over 3.8. What is interesting is that the students who get into the top campuses are so good that they have great options elsewhere and often take them.
I can’t give you a cite on this, save to say that I lived in Kentucky for five years, but I think Kentucky has the lowest percentage of citizens who leave the state of any state in the union. With that said, prospective college students from Kentucky will no doubt follow the money for their undergraduate studies.
Comparing CA (population 39 Million) top UC colleges to UK’s (population 4.4 Million) isn’t very instructive.
A lot of us are looking at this college search thing (that’s the reason many of our parents came to CC), as a balance between cost and academics for OUR child. Of course, we want big fat merit scholarships! Graduation rates are of lesser importance’s, since we’re going to pick a school our child can afford and do well at.
However, UK’s primary mission is to educate and graduate students. It was founded, as many of the land grant universities, with that mission. Right now, almost 40% of the incoming freshman class do not graduate in 6 years. That’s a problem. It has to do something to address that issue. If it’s determine that financial cost is a key reason for the low graduation rates, it will need to find a way to reduce it’s cost for those students most at risk of dropping out. It really doesn’t have any choice.
The only question, is how will it come up with the funds to lower it’s cost. It doesn’t look like the state is about to increase it’s funding (state grants to students, or it’s allocation to UK), so the university has to work with it’s current sources of revenue and how it’s allocated.
It is simple liberalism. They did a “study” to determine that students who can’t afford college in the first place don’t stay at the college for all 4 years. Brilliant. The remedy then must be to subsidize the product rather than steering the student to products that are affordable - e.g. staying at home and starting in community college, etc. In this process they decide to reduce merit aid used to attract their best students. So in the end, they are trying to attract lesser qualified students who cannot afford to be there and rid themselves of top students who otherwise probably would not attend. Do that for about 20 years and then do another study to see the obvious results.
Might the results not be higher student retention, higher graduation rates, greater percentage of benefits to state residents, and a more educated local populace?
<<<
Comparing CA (population 39 Million) top UC colleges to UK’s (population 4.4 Million) isn’t very instructive.
<<<<
You may not understand my point. Some have pointed to Calif’s Cal Grants as a great equalizer for low income students and access to their top schools…removing the advantage of higher income kids. Low income kids can’t get into those schools if their stats aren’t top notch…so the Cal Grant is simply a tix to a college education somewhere in the state. Higher income students will always have an advantage because they tend to go to better K-12 and have better access to test prep/tutoring. We can’t remove that advantage thru social eng’g.
That said, who knows how long Calif can continue to offer Cal Grants as they do. At some point, the eligibility req’ts may change or the awards may change. With so many Calif students attending UCs and CSUs on Cal Grants at $6k-14k per person per year, I suspect some sort of collapse at some point.
Other states’ flagships may not have CalGrant-like options, but if they are offer large merit for tops stats, then at least the top-stats low income kids can combine that merit with fed aid and have much/all of their costs covered. Those states often have local state univs sprinkled across their states providing a 4 year education within the commuting distance for most…and those often offer some merit as well.
[QUOTE=""]
However, UK's primary mission is to educate and graduate students. It was founded, as many of the land grant universities, with that mission. Right now, almost 40% of the incoming freshman class do not graduate in 6 years. That's a problem. It has to do something to address that issue. If it's determine that financial cost is a key reason for the low graduation rates, it will need to find a way to reduce it's cost for those students most at risk of dropping out. It really doesn't have any choice.
[/QUOTE]
The grad rate issues aren’t going to go away anytime soon simply because of their many root causes. Most publics are serving their “primary mission” which is to educate the masses…and many who matriculate aren’t always completely “college ready” and need some sub100 math and/or English classes.
Plus, a huge % of kids change their majors, sometimes DRASTICALLY, and that can mean a 5th or 6th year is needed. Perhaps the privates who are providing 4 years of aid aren’t permitting those changes? Or at least are telling their students,“if you change from engineering to English, you will not graduate on time and you won’t have funding for that 5th year,” and then the student stays in engineering or changes to a major with less negative impact? I don’t know. But also likely those full-aid privates are starting with a more college-ready, strong math/English skill group to begin with.
That said, I wish schools were a little more aggressive about insisting that full time students take at least 15-17 credits per semester. Maybe provide some sort of incentive. I can’t tell you how many students/parents don’t “do the math” are realize that 12 credits per semester will delay graduation. “What? I can’t graduate in 4 years? Why? I’m going full-time???!!!”
And, I wish that publics enrolling students who aren’t ready for college math and English provide/direct those students to take summer classes, either online for free thru the Univ or at a local CC, before enrolling to get them up to speed. Why waste a semester’s time and cost getting kids college ready?? I don’t know if this is still the case, but for DECADES, the Calif publics were reporting that 40-50% of their college freshmen needed sub100 courses for math and English.
Sure, at some point, cost does cause some to drop out. As they reach ages 22-24 and still haven’t graduated, life sometimes “gets in the way.” Marriage, babies, the need to work full time, etc…can cause kids to leave school. Addressing some of those above-mentioned issues may help alleviate this problem.
But that will not stop people from trying.
That’s an almost universal problem outside of the most selective colleges and universities.
For example, at the University of Alabama in fall 2016, enrollments from https://registrar.ua.edu/student-services/schedule-of-classes/ :
MATH 005 Introductory Algebra: 89 + 102 + 115 = 306
MATH 100 Intermediate Algebra: 120 + 112 + 118 + 121 + 122 + 121 + 122 + 122 + 121 + 120 + 119 + 122 + 3 + 29 = 1472
And that is just the two lowest remedial math courses (equivalent to high school algebra 1 and algebra 2), not counting MATH 112, 113, 115 (precalculus level courses).
Actually, even highly selective colleges offer remedial courses. For example: https://www.math.princeton.edu/undergraduate/course/mat100/ .