<p>(You might have to register)</p>
<p>From the Jay Mathews' Washington Post article:</p>
<p>"A father recently wrote to Dickinson College complaining that although the school admitted his daughter, it did not offer her any scholarship money, which two of its competitors had. The family's income was $250,000 a year, but the father figured that the Carlisle, Pa., college would kick in some financial aid rather than risk losing a student with excellent grades and test scores. </p>
<p>Robert J. Massa, Dickinson's vice president for enrollment and college relations, said the father's request did not surprise him. It was typical of the rising tide of "merit" or "non-need-based" scholarships -- a zero-sum game, Massa said, that is hurting the quality of undergraduate education. </p>
<p>"Family expectations of price incentives are rampant, and my colleagues and I take the bait," he said.
A 2003 study by the Indianapolis-based Lumina Foundation for Education reported that from 1995 to 2000, scholarship aid to students from families making $40,000 or less increased 22 percent in 1999 dollars. At the same time, scholarship aid for students in families making $100,000 or more a year increased 145 percent. ..."</p>
<p>See the earlier thread "Merit Aid May Be Waning." </p>
<p>What I found most disconcerting in the article was the statement "A 2003 study by the Indianapolis-based Lumina Foundation for Education reported that from 1995 to 2000, scholarship aid to students from families making $40,000 or less increased 22 percent in 1999 dollars. At the same time, scholarship aid for students in families making $100,000 or more a year increased 145 percent."</p>
<p>Merit aid at some private schools creates a retreat from reality and from a diverse society when families who could afford to send their kids anywhere take advantage of merit aid that colleges offer to raise their own selectivity index. There may be many other variables at play but why should the affluent receive a 145% increase in scholarship aid while the less affluent are only getting a 22% increase? Colleges are competing for a certain type of student at the expense of another type of student.</p>
<p>I read somewhere that schools find themselves more attractive if they charge $30,000 tuition and give $7,000 in merit aid, vs. just charging $23,000 in tuition. The numbers are not exactly what I read, but the idea is the same.</p>
<p>A neighbor of mine definitely is in the 300K income range, but I could tell from a conversation we had the other day that she was counting on merit aid for her (very bright) son. I looked around at the Mercedes and European travel brochures on the coffee table, and thought that maybe somewhere along the line (like maybe 10 years ago) she might have considered giving up some goodies to make sure that her son had more choices....I don't get it.</p>
<p>RPI has 1/4 of its students receive merit aid through the Renssaelaer medal. It's a recruiting program and has allowed them to vastly improve their student base and has led to some major donations. They also provide a $3K discount to children of alums. It's one way to get students to a school in the armpit town of Troy NY. </p>
<p>(Disclosure: H attended RPI. I think it's a great school.)</p>
<p>Why do we always have such a hard time when yet another proof confirms that private colleges are just another business doing what's good for them?</p>
<p>Zagat, its because they're private that they have to look at what's good for them....how can they afford not to?</p>
<p>Oh I agree. I totally see them as businesses that need to create the best possible product to thrive. I just marvel that so many can't believe they are not "fair".</p>
<p>Why do we always have such a hard time when yet another proof confirms that private colleges are just another business doing what's good for them?</p>
<p>Well said</p>
<p>As for the $300,000+ family hoping to receive merit aid for their bright son, they probably could easily afford the expensive schools without aid, but if merit aid is available at all, why not try to get it? Do you think they are wealthy because they enjoy making stupid decisions regarding their finances? Why shouldn't bright students, regardless of their families income levels, be enticed by offers of aid? The lower income kids are eligible for the merit aid as well as the need based aid from all sources, you know, but the higher income kids have no hope of any help unless it comes in the form of merit aid.</p>
<p>Zagat ~ Well said. </p>
<p>I wonder what would happen if the government offered to loan 100% of the cost of college to every enrolled kid at an interest rate of cpi + 1%, regardless of need.</p>
<p>I can think of several things that would happen at once:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many well-to-do parents would "buy down" the loans for their kids...but not all wealthy parents would do so.</p></li>
<li><p>Merit aid could be distributed solely based on the achievements of the kids...or could it? I think would still be contentious.</p></li>
<li><p>Pressures would mount to control the total cost of a university education, just as pressures are mounting for price controls on drugs.</p></li>
<li><p>Would universities be forced to officially inform students of the eventual cost of repayment of the loans as a fraction of anticipaed earnings depending upon their major? Sort of like the government forcing lenders to show the "real interest rate" on loans...art history might become a degree only the rich could afford to pursue.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I can see both sides of the question. I believe that need-based aid is absolutely vital. I know our older son could never have had the opportunity to study at Stanford without it. And I believe it is so important that those students who come from needier families not be denied the chance for a good education.</p>
<p>On the other hand, for those in the middle class, or those whose children hope to attend colleges that "gap" aid, merit aid can also be vital. My younger son has been accepted at two state colleges (not in our state) that do not meet 100% of need. In addition, our income has risen since our older son went to college. (We had to work more hours in order to pay his costs and keep loans down.) So the merit aid he obtained has made the difference between those two colleges being true possibilities and being out of reach financially.</p>
<p>I think need-based aid should always receive priority, but there is still an important place for merit aid.</p>
<p>The merit aid going to rich families is given in order to add lustre to the schools by raising their median SATs and attracting "better" students. </p>
<p>The long term effect of this will be to put more and more schools on the national "radar," rather than just the Ivies, AWS, and a dozen excellent State Us. This will eventually benefit many many kids by making many more recognizable & academic options. As these schools rise their merit aid programs for the rich will wane.</p>
<p>"their merit aid programs for the rich will wane."</p>
<p>Merit aid programs are not for the rich...they are for any students who have worked hard in school and made good choices for themselves. That their families have money or not should be irrelevant.</p>
<p>"Merit aid programs are not for the rich...they are for any students who have worked hard in school and made good choices for themselves."</p>
<p>Merit aid, though, will disproportionately go to the people who are upper middle class and wealthy. Why? Those are the people who can afford to live in the best public school districts or to send their kids to excellent private schools. Those are the types of schools that have the rigorous curricula that lead to high scores.</p>
<p>In addition, students from such homes aren't as likely to have to work jobs during the school year and summer as is the case with less well off students. This leaves time for after school activities and ECs that make students qualify for merit aid.</p>
<p>Students whose families are low income can't afford the trips and time that competitive academic games take. They also may lack transportation to participate in other activites that could make them stand out for merit aid.</p>
<p>I suspect there are quite a few people that might be in a position to disagree with your assumptions, Northstarmom. My daughter went to average Texas public high schools, participated in band, was on yearbook and newspaper, and took every advanced course she could. There weren't any excess costs for any of those things, just a commitment to doing good things for her future. She is working this year as a senior and still doing all those things. She is working because the college tells her that she should contribute $3,000 toward her own support. Her life is not easy, and the paltry $3,000 merit scholarship she received from her LAC of choice is small potatoes compared to the effort she put into earning her grades, test scores, recommendation letters, and EC's.</p>
<p>In a way, I think you are right that the wealthier families will end up receiving more offers of merit aid, but not for the reasons you have listed. I think the wealthier families got that way because of planning, the ability to delay gratification, and plain old intelligence. These parents are bound to pass along these skills/tendencies/genes on to their kids.</p>
<p>We are increasingly running this society more for the benefits of the upper income folks. This is happening in all spheres of society. Why should we expect education to be different? </p>
<p>There used to be overall more grants vs loans (don't just talk about Harvard and their token $40,000 rule that applies to so few). In addition as we all know the costs of elite colleges has far outstripped the ability of the hardest working kid to make much of a dent in costs with outside earnings. On the other hand,the tax breaks for upper income families may be keeping up with the costs of higher ed, part of the larger picture of what the voters seem to want.</p>
<p>The middle class are turning down the Elites not due to inability to receive loans, but lack of grants.</p>
<p>If we actually want to have a more egalitarian and merit based society we could have more federal grants for education. Or perhaps we could require all private colleges that receive federal grants to provide more grants to poor and middle class students. As was raised in another thread, why should we shovel tens of millions of federal dollars to Harvard, John Hopkins and the others if their admissions policies favor the well off?</p>
<p>" My daughter went to average Texas public high schools, participated in band, was on yearbook and newspaper, and took every advanced course she could. There weren't any excess costs for any of those things, just a commitment to doing good things for her future. "</p>
<p>At many schools, however, there are excess costs including buying or renting a band instrument, paying for private lessons (and having the transportation to get there), paying for a uniform, paying for transportation costs for out of town trips and having to forgo working after school and on weekends in order to participate in band or things like yearbook.</p>
<p>In addition, many students are not able to participate in ECs that occur outside of normal school hours (when school buses are available) because the students lack cars or lack parents with the transportation and flexibility to get them to school early or pick them up late.</p>
<p>At S's high school, many of the students in the nonmagnet part of the high school are in single parent families in which their parents have not graduated from high school. Most of those students qualify for the free lunch program. They can't afford band instruments, costs to participate in academic games, etc. Many have to start working at age 14 or 15 in order to help support their families.</p>
<p>There definitely are excess costs for the things at S's school. When S participated in an academic competitive team, the trips, which were at least once a month cost between $25-$150 (more for national and regional events). This was in addition to dues, which were about $40, I think. Of course, the team was filled with middle/upper class students from the magnet program, which attracts students from around our city, which in general is solidly middle/upper class.</p>
<p>In addition, there are lab fees for science courses, and students in AP/IB classes often have to buy supplemental books, which probably add about $60 a year for students taking the full IB/AP program. While the school will let students borrow books, clearly they are at a disadvantage because they can't mark up their books the way that students can who own their own books.</p>
<p>A merit based society? Is that your ideal, texdad? Then why aren't you supporting merit based aid?</p>