<p>The Trustee and Presidential Merit Scholarships are so valuable that those who feel entitled to these awards and do not receive them can feel frustrated. Understandable as that is, it is best to be careful to get all information straight. When disappointment leads to unfounded speculation, it’s time to get real.</p>
<p>USC offers much FinAid, and is competitive with other top schools when the FinAid awards come out. In that way, they attract and enroll hundreds of excellent students with need. However, USC wants to entice as many top students away from ivies and the like as is possible. For this reason, they offer Presidential scholarships for NMF, assuring a pool of very highly SAT’d enrollees However, with their other merit awards, USC is most likely going to tempt the most excellent (in each school/ department head’s opinions) middle-class students. Looking at the money, families with incomes below $180,000 will get great FA from many top ivies, and below $100,000 at most other well-endowed schools–so the Trustee or Presidential may not make a huge difference there. High income families, on the other hand, may not be as sensitive to cost and therefore may choose a college based on other-than-$$ criteria. It’s those middle to upper-middle class students who are awarded Trustee or Presidential who may choose USC over a more highly ranked college. As about 60% of those offered Trustee do matriculate, we can suppose that the other 40% were either offered sufficient FA at other schools (meaning, low income) which they preferred, or they were immune to the $$ and made decisions without that consideration. By this supposition, it would appear that USC offers merit scholarships to their most highly coveted students over a broad economic range.</p>
<p>To suggest otherwise, as earlier on this thread, isn’t logical. USC is has no reason to hide their generosity to high-need students. That’s a great plus for many applicants. They also have no reason to lie about merit qualifications. The tone of this thread comes across as accusing USC of something underhanded, and that is undeserved of a school that does so much more than any other in rewarding the students at the top end of their enrollment class.</p>
<p>To reinforce menloparkmom’s and other posts, each school interviews finalists and makes decisions on awardees. This means 1) creative majors are less GPA/SAT rigorous, placing high value on auditions, portfolios, awards and talent. Having a 4.0 UW GPA will not get you into Julliard either. 2) math intensive majors will likely have extremely high GPA/SAT scholars as the pool they compete in will be self-selecting 3) professors on the judgment panel are the last people to care about finAid concerns–they are looking for proven leaders to enter their departments 4) just like admission to ivies, the process is not GPA/SAT exclusive–and the essays, letters of rec, honors, internships, research, professional experience, talents, community service, international awards and maturity and compassion that come through the application, supplements, and Merit interview are what count–at this high level-- even more than stats. </p>
<p>Many highly qualified students are not invited to interview, and some who are invited are not offered the highest awards. Those who call into question the validity of the standards and allow themselves to believe gossip about hidden motives may be looking for a way to understand their own student’s rejection. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that those who get accepted to the top programs in the country don’t really deserve it, it is more realistic to recognize that many people possess greater talent, personal character, and leadership than may be observed on the surface by another teenager or their parents.</p>