<p>I've seen statements on the forums that object to merit-based aid.</p>
<p>I don't get it. If merit-based aid were to vanish, then there would be less incentive for academic achievement. Of course, the people objecting to merit-based aid would then complain about declining academic achievement.</p>
<p>People who object to it are confused on a number of issues. I think they see education primarily as a means of achieving social equality, and they correlate academic success to economic privelege. Therefore, merit scholarships would serve to reward the rich and, at the same time, would sap resources away from need based financial aid. </p>
<p>Or something to that effect.</p>
<p>One thing that is often brought up is that merit aid often reduces the need based aid available to others.</p>
<p>People objecting to merit aid generally fall into two groups:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Students (or parents) who don't get merit aid.</p></li>
<li><p>Admissions officers (or other college administrators) who are forced to offer merit aid to attract the most qualified students.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Isn't there enough money for both merit-based and need-based aid? There is no need for an "all-or-nothing" solution.</p>
<p>jhsu, I think that there's only enough money for both at a select number of schools. Many schools in this country, particularly those that offer the fattest and most numerous merit awards, have a large number of low income students and struggle to offer them enough financial aid. But then again, 99% of CC is top 25 uni's and top 10 LAC's, so who cares? ;)</p>
<p>relative to posts #2 and #6, it seems to me that those seeking more "social equality" or more opportunity for lower income families to share in full educational opportunity, should lobby Congress for heftier taxes to supply federal grant money, if that's the way they feel. I'm suggesting that such federal sources be targeted specifically to gap aid, across the board, proportional to a <em>college's</em> "need." That would allow institutions which are pricey but not well funded in endowments, to admit with FA more lower-income students. Similarly, it would benefit stronger-income families by making gap aid funding available at the Vassars, the Wesleyans, the NYU's, etc.</p>
<p>I think many responders on CC, when descrying the race to Ivies, often forget that not everyone can afford to attend institutions that offer rotten need aid & even more rotten (or no) merit aid. When, as cavalier noted, there are a handful of generously aiding institutions (& which have less need for "enrollment management"), that puts additional admissions pressures on those upper-tiers.</p>
<p>I know plenty of middle-class high school students who realistically see their choices as these:
(1) Ivy acceptance
(2) In-State Public U acceptance/matriculation
(3) third-tier ("extreme" safety) private or OOS Univ. with attractive aid
(4) obscene debt</p>
<p>Better economic diversity among student bodies will only occur when more varied funding sources are available to a wider range of institutions.</p>
<p>And admissions frenzy is more tied to $$ than many people like to believe, or like to admit.</p>
<p>That's a sideways way of responding to the OP, but it does respond to the "social equality" question. As for the original question, I've never understood this. The argument I've read is that merit money favors the "rich" or upper middle-class because supposedly they have supports in place for higher scholastic achievement. But that is just not true. And at the very least, I've never had a problem with a combo of merit & need, which again could be addressed by gap aid.</p>
<p>Spending money on merit scholarships is something like money that companies spend on advertising -- necessary to give their product a "better name identification" to their target audience. By attracting some of the best students out there, colleges can achieve better stats themselves and better "rankings" that result in a better perception among the public. Those who are against spending money for merit scholarships because they think that the money should go to the "poor," might also argue that companies shouldn't spend money on advertising because then the poor have to pay more for their product. That argument only reveals one's ignorance of the market system. </p>
<p>One more thing.... the so-called "rich" who also have high stats probably rarely go to the schools that give merit money -- because THEY have choice since their families can pay "full-freight". We see this all the time on the CC board. There are families here that have kids who turn down merit offers because the kids know that mom and dad can easily and painlessly pay full tuition at XXX "no merit" University.</p>
<p>i agree with some of the arguments here, but consider this: a kid from the ghetto who's parents do not actively support his or her education, who gets a 2000 on his SAT. no AP's, because the school has little funding.
a kid from the suburbs who's parents pay for tutoring and enrichment courses, gets a 2300 SAT.
who should be admitted? (if you could only choose one)
the first student overcame great obstacles, but student 2 achieved more. this is part of the AA debate.. because it is perceived that african americans do not have same education opportunities as whites..but i feel that the only form of AA there should be should be based on socioeconomics, not race, since there are rich blacks and poor whites, also.
but back to the topic, let's say that BOTH kids get accepted. now student 2 can obviously afford say, Harvard. but student 1 cannot. however, student 2 scored higher, achieved more, etc. This is where teh conflict arises. the parents of student 2 say it should be merit based, but the parents of student 1 say need-based.
what's your opinion?</p>
<p>jlauer, top students contribute much more to a college than name recognition and rankings. Students are the lifeblood of any university, and better ones make the university a better place for students and educators. Better students allow the university to attract better professors. Better students raise the bar for everyone else. </p>
<p>The so-called "rich" aren't always rich. There are many families in expensive areas with incomes in the $100k-$150k range who get stiffed in the financial aid process who cannot reasonably afford to pay $45k per year for a private education. Many of these people are attracted by fat merit packages offered by lower ranked schools.</p>
<p>Merit aid often ellicits a lot of emotion for the reasons a number of people have stated already. To actually see schools putting into merit aid instead of need based aid you only need to look at the financial aid tab of any shool in the online version of USNews. You will see that some schools meet say 90% of need while also providing 5% of the students a merit offer of a certain amount.</p>
<p>i agree w/ that also, but sometimes merit based award is needed because some kids do not "reap the benefits of wealthy parents" and actually are quite "brilliant" or study on their own a lot.. and deserve some recognition</p>
<p>"The so-called "rich" aren't always rich. There are many families in expensive areas with incomes in the $100k-$150k range who get stiffed in the financial aid process who cannot reasonably afford to pay $45k per year for a private education."</p>
<p>I agree that it is almost impossible for a middle class family to come up with $45K out of current income. However, a family with income in the $100K to $150K range SHOULD have been setting aside money every year to pay for college. Eighteen years of steadily increasing savings, combined with a frugal lifestyle, makes college affordable. I know a lot of familes in my area (Metro Boston) who felt that private schools, private summer camps, country club dues, golf vacations, ski homes, beach houses, boats, ski trips, latest model cars, etc., etc., were more important priorities for the last eighteen years than pre-funding their kid's college costs. I also know as many families that saved regularly, made hard choices about luxuries, and have a clear plan for funding college. People make their own decisions. </p>
<p>Before anyone yells at me...I also know that there are plenty of families who did save consistently, who are fighting with huge mortgages, but late in the process faced unexpected corporate downsizing or medical bills. College Financial Aid Offices understand these facts. But my point is that no one with a $100K or $150K income could possibly be surprised to discover in March 2006 that a private LAC costs $45K per year. The discussion of paying for college for the class of 2010 is a conversation that kids and parents should have been having years ago, not this week as acceptance letters are arriving.</p>
<p>Wondering about something: if merit aid were to be eliminated tomorrow, do we know that those funds would be used to increase need-based aid instead? Or would those funds be used to make colleges more attractive to highly-desired students in other ways - programs, facilities, faculty enhancement, nicer dorms for honors students, whatever?</p>
<p>I have never understood the argument that merit aid necessarily robs the poor to pay the rich. The truly rich can comfortably afford full freight, as others have noted above. This appears to be a middle-class moral dilemma. Fortunately, those who believe merit aid is wrong can turn it down or apply to schools that offer need-based aid only.</p>
<p>I don't think merit based aid is wrong, but some (usually wealthy) people think aid should be based on stats, without looking at socioeconomic backgrounds. there should be both, in my opinion.
the problem is at like ivies. at harvard, everyone is unique and amazing (usually) but how do you determine who is the best, academically? a kid with a 2400 4.2 gpa, or a kid w/ a 2370 4.3 GPA?</p>
<p>rightwing, the Ivys do not award merit aid so the determination of aid for your example would be based on need-based factors.</p>
<p>It's not "true" merit aid, though, if it involves looking at socioeconomic background....</p>
<p>For the record, our family falls into that "in-between" category where we just missed any financial aid for our daughter at a $40,000+ university. She also failed to receive any merit aid except for two small renewable scholarships worth $1500/year each. We are scraping to pay the bills so that she can receive a top-notch education, though. Yes, we did plan in advance for her education, but $40,000 per year is incredibly tough on a middle class income.</p>
<p>We would like to see more merit scholarships available to students who were possibly overlooked as they graduated from high school, but who went on to really prove themselves as stellar students in college. Our daughter came from a small rural h.s. and was probably not given a second thought as a merit scholarship recipient prior to entering a college full of talented students. Now, however, she is in the top ten of her class in college, and yet, there are no scholarships available to her based on her current success.</p>
<p>"The so-called "rich" aren't always rich. There are many families in expensive areas with incomes in the $100k-$150k range who get stiffed in the financial aid process who cannot reasonably afford to pay $45k per year for a private education."</p>
<p>Absolutely. And the system assumes that such people with such incomes have always made so-called high incomes and therefore should have been saving a bunch of money all along.</p>
<p>"I agree that it is almost impossible for a middle class family to come up with $45K out of current income. However, a family with income in the $100K to $150K range SHOULD have been setting aside money every year to pay for college"</p>
<p>You are assuming that such people have been making such incomes for awhile. some of us have only recently, thru promotions, job changes, or the addition of a second income, have seen big increases in income. Imagine a family that has had a mom at home for years and dad is just starting to climb the corporate ladder. For years, they struggled. Now dad has been promoted a bit and perhaps mom has taken a part-time job. Now they have a 6 figure income. This is new for them. They couldn't have been "saving all along" as you describe. Even now, they have to play "catch up" with their retirement savings AND college costs.</p>
<p>cavalier: </p>
<p>You are making my point even better -- thanks. Kids who receive merit money end up being good for the school. Totally agree.</p>