<p>haha or to be more practical, if you're backed up in the corner facing a $40,000+ /per year price tag, how much money would you like?</p>
<p>^^^ hey, who said life was "fair"? ... the other schools who try and play nice or "fair" are like the little pencil necked geeks in the playground wiping their taped up spectacles while WashU is going around like Mr. T eating everyone's lunch, saying, "hey fool, i know you ain't hungry no more, so I'm gonna eat that, OK?"</p>
<p>I don't see why everyone should be morally obligated to share the opinions of the anti-merit aid crowd. Whose definition of need should be the yardstick for every college to follow in regard to the offering of financial aid or financial incentives to bring in the desired students? In some cases, WashU's merit aid goes to students who, while not poor poor, would not be able to afford to attend a private university without it. Is this really a cause for moral outrage? </p>
<p>So WashU offers merit scholarships to attract some high-achieving, high-scoring students who might have chosen to go elsewhere if not for the incentive. Again, I see no reason for moral outrage. It's not something done solely for the sake of pleasing the USNWR methodology. It's about quality attracting quality. High-achieving students in strong numbers attract top professors who want to work with motivated students. Other high-achieving students want to be surrounded by their peers. High quality students combined with high quality professors, with low student-faculty ratios, and a strong endowment to provide institutional support make for a vastly improved university from its regional college days, so why shouldn't WashU be recognized with a higher national profile and ranking. </p>
<p>Frankly, I think the WashU administration under Mark Wrighton ought to be applauded rather than vilified for bringing another university, a geographically challenged, if you will, university into the spotlight as a viable alternative for HYPSM and Ivy hopefuls. Taking a "hidden gem" and making it better and more prominent happens to be a good thing.</p>
<p>P.S. Lets pretend the "happy go-lucky bloke, Brown" never had an Ivy League halo over its head and was just a great hidden gem college in out-of-the-way Rhode Island city with some history, but no cache. Do you think that under similar conditions, Brown administrators might feel the need to strategize differently? I do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
P.S. Lets pretend the "happy go-lucky bloke, Brown" never had an Ivy League halo over its head and was just a great hidden gem college in out-of-the-way Rhode Island city with some history, but no cache. Do you think that under similar conditions, Brown administrators might feel the need to strategize differently? I do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess you are agreeing with me then that WashU is doing what it needs to do "by any means necessary". MY point is, however, that every other non-Ivy school doesn't go to the extreme that WashU does.... It's like my Mr. T analogy, "...hey boy, those Twinkies are looking mighty tasty..."</p>
<p>many other non-ivy schools that you're referring to aren't the new kids on the block. there are, however, a good number of peer colleges that give aid.</p>
<p>WashU is brilliant and it needs to be, because breaking into the ranks of the old guard elites is an enormous task. How else, except through merit scholarships can a newcomer "elite" attract the best and the brightest who can and do get accepted to the old guard ivys and elites? What about all the money schools spend to attract and pay the best faculty. Should all that money be used instead for need based financial aid?</p>
<p>Prestige: </p>
<p>I think it's pretty obvious that I don't agree with your belligerent bias against WashU. I don't think it's "fair" to use your word, or well founded. You can couch WashU's administrative decisions in the most negative terms you want --- "whatever it takes" and "by any means necessary" and "to the extreme" and "bare knuckle brawler" --- but it's still just your opinion. And I think you're wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can couch WashU's administrative decisions in the most negative terms you want --- "whatever it takes" and "by any means necessary" and "to the extreme" and "bare knuckle brawler" --- but it's still just your opinion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But herein lies the crux of the argument -- which is true with about 90% of the arguments / debates on CC (or otherwise). It's a matter of perspective. It's shades of gray. Pro-WashU folks aren't 100% right. WashU critics aren't 100% right. The truth, as it does in most cases, lies somewhere in the middle.</p>
<p>What one person sees as being "resourceful" or "strategic", others may see as "shady" or "questionable". You say "to-may-TOH", I say "to-MAH-oh". So my view may very well be "just my opinion" but to that i'd respond two-fold: 1) so is yours and 2) i seem to be in good company.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't see why everyone should be morally obligated to share the opinions of the anti-merit aid crowd. Whose definition of need should be the yardstick for every college to follow in regard to the offering of financial aid or financial incentives to bring in the desired students? In some cases, WashU's merit aid goes to students who, while not poor poor, would not be able to afford to attend a private university without it. Is this really a cause for moral outrage?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Very well written, jazzymom.</p>
<p>I hate, and I mean I HATE the "affordability" 'argument' against merit based aid.</p>
<p>These parents like to claim that recipients of merit scholarships can pay anyway, a very loose criterion. As I've previously stated, there are a lot of things that I can buy, like new textbooks, a new desktop, a new guitar. Does that mean I will buy those all the time? No.</p>
<p>Among the colleges that offer substantial number or partial and full-tuition merit-only scholarships:
UChicago
CalTech
Duke
JHU
CMU
Emory
Vandy
USC
Boston University
and number of LACs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The truth, as it does in most cases, lies somewhere in the middle.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It surely does. Let's take a look at some positive (i.e. not normative) statements.</p>
<ol>
<li>Washington University in St. Louis markets itself aggressively.</li>
</ol>
<p>The evidence? After high school started, almost everyone in my regular World Geography class had received information from them.</p>
<ol>
<li>Wash. U. has many students who scored very well on the SAT.</li>
</ol>
<p>A simple CB search for the school reveals such information.</p>
<ol>
<li>Wash. U. offers merit-based scholarships to students with stellar stats who can express themselves well on paper and in person.</li>
</ol>
<p>We know that the university offers merit-based scholarships. We know that not just anyone earns these. Of the three statements, this may be the least "strictly factual." (I acknowledge injection of some opinion.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
UChicago
CalTech
Duke
JHU
Boston University
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you sure about these?</p>
<p>curmudgeon made a very comprehensive and helpful post about this a while back. I remember her commenting that Duke doesn't offer a whole lot.</p>
<p>Lots of midwestern and southern LACs are very generous with merit scholarships.</p>
<p>the_prestige - You are absolutely right about opinions. Certainly are a lot of them on CC. It is just when these are refered to and repeated as fact, then they become a problem. When fhimas88888888 - refers to WashU having a waitlist of 8 to 10 thousand then things get ridiculous. As for being in good company - that again is a matter of opinion. Can't say that the company is better on either side of the fence.</p>
<p>Obviously people will have different opinions depending on which side of the fence they are on. I think that people that have an involvement in WashU (students, parents, alums) probably have a better feel for the situation on campus. Most of the ones I know support reducing the size of the student body. Such a reduction will result in a better experience for the students on campus. Like it or not - that is the main responsibility of the administration.</p>
<p>As for merit aid - again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I know, in our case WashU would not have been possible without a full tuition scholarship. The woe of being in the middle - not rich enough to pay and not poor enough for any significant financial aid. So either put off retirement by many years, saddle the student with a large debt or go to a state school. By the way WashU was not unique with their offer. There were similair offers from Duke, Emory, Rochester and a few others. So I guess we should also begin bashing them. Nothing wrong with opinion - just the same old same old does get old after a while.</p>
<p>UChicago - 20 full tuitions and 100 ones at 10k/yr
CalTech - 10-20 full tuition
Duke - 60 full tuitions (some for NC residenst only)
JHU - number of 1/2 (not sure about full tuitions)
CMU- number of 1/2 (not sure about full tuitions)
Boston University - 30 or so full tuitions</p>
<p>haha it's very funny that schools are so threatened by others like WashU that offer merit aid. If they care so much, why not conjure up some funds from their satisfied alum base? </p>
<p>Because they deem it a morally unsavory thing to do. Why would they want to divert money that could go to needy students towards "buying" students far from needy just to boost their numbers?</p>
<p>I hope that when you grow up and have to pay bills, worry about retirement you might have a different understanding of what is "far from needy". I also finf your statement somewhat offensive - considering that you have no idea as to the type of students that receive merit scholarships. I know of very few, if any, afluent students at WashU in the Scholars programs. Most are truly middle class or below. So once again - you are certainly entitled to your opinion - but wouldn't it be nice if you actually had something to back up your opinion.</p>
<p>datadriven, I can't speak for the other colleges you listed, but Duke's scholarships are privately endowed. That money was given to Duke by donors for the express purpose of merit scholarships. That is not at all the same thing as a school offering merit scholarships out of its own pocket. I'm not sure whether the former or latter applies to WUStL.</p>
<p>In any case, at least most of those colleges are need-blind. To the best of my knowledge, WUStL is not.</p>
<p>warblersrule86, the same applies to most of WashU, Emory and Vandy merit schoparships (not sure about other colleges)</p>
<p>Well, I don't have the time or energy to do a factual study of which colleges pay out what in aid and enhancements and why. But the reasoning that some don't do it because it's "morally unsavory" is pretty naive. Some don't do it because they are at the tippy top of the selectivity pyramid already and don't have to. Some don't because they don't have a large enough endowment to do so and can't afford to. Some don't, perhaps, because they want to allocate 100 percent of aid toward pure need (though of course the students receiving it are often the high-scoring needy). The Ivy League schools may say they don't give merit aid so they can claim some kind of moral high ground but of course they do give adjustments, and tuition breaks, and special paid fellowships to reduce costs, and other enhancements and often these go to roughly the same type of student that WashU gives merit aid to: middle class students with great qualifications who otherwise would not be able to attend. It's a "tomato," "to-mah-to" thing IMO.</p>
<p>one thing has become clear:</p>
<p>jazzymom is quite feisty...</p>