<p>The external scholarship applications don't usually consider where you're going to school, so they don't know how much your need is in relation to the cost of the school that you want to attend. It seems to me that they just require that you be lower income.</p>
<p>If a "poor" kid has great achievements, any university fighting for diversity would want him/her. And a "poor" kid would receive the same amount money with no loss in financing. It would simply called differently: a merit award. </p>
<p>If If a "poor" kid has nothing special to be proud of, then the only source of money for him/her is need-based award. In this case, a "poor" kid would take away money from another kid who work hard for this recognition. </p>
<p>There is no doubt that increase in merit awards would lift the rating of any University. Because, it means that better students will come, achieve greater things, etc., etc. The rating is not defined by parents' wealth. It is defined by performance of students in any particular University. </p>
<p>If you agree that the ratings of any University increase with less need-based aid, then you agree that "need only" students are not as good University's students as merit students. It translates into better workers after graduation, better country......</p>
<p>*There is no doubt that increase in merit awards would lift the rating of any University. Because, it means that better students will come, achieve greater things, etc., etc. The rating is not defined by parents' wealth. It is defined by performance of students in any particular University. *</p>
<p>
[quote]
Reed College has received a record 3,051 applications for 345 freshman spaces in its Class of 2010. </p>
<p>This represents a 15 percent increase over last year and is the fourth consecutive record year for applications, Dean of Admission Paul Marthers said. While a number of our peer institutions are also reporting higher applicant numbers this year, few if any can match the unbroken expansion in appeal reflected in Reeds 76 percent increase since 200001. We think this may be an indication that Reeds special status even among small, selective national liberal arts colleges is attracting more and more attention from students and parents. </p>
<p>The average SAT (1401) and ACT (31) scores of the admitted class are comparable to those of previous years. Many of the students admitted to Reed have weighted grade point averages that are higher than 4.0, with the average GPA at 3.978. Reeds admitted class this year includes at least 116 high school valedictorians. Of admitted students who chose to report class rank, 76 percent are in the top 10 percent of their graduating high school class and 89 percent in the top 20 percent.</p>
<p>With an enrollment today of about 1,360 students, Reed has produced the second highest number of Rhodes Scholars (31), for any liberal arts college, as well as over 50 Fulbright Scholars, over 60 Watson Fellows, and two MacArthur ("Genius") Award winners. A very high proportion of Reed graduates go on to earn Ph.D.s, particularly in the sciences, history, political science, and philosophy. Reed is third in percentage of its graduates who go on to earn Ph.D.s in all disciplines, after only the California Institute of Technology and Harvey Mudd. Reed is first in this percentage in biology. Visit web.reed.edu for further information.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Considering the school doesn't submit info to US NEWS- doesn't have sports teams of any note- is not only less than 1500 students but located in Or-e-gon, and is one of the most expensive schools in the country-
It looks like they are doing pretty well attracting students</p>
<p>the schools that don't offer merit awards really don't need to offer them to attract qualified students- even if they didn't offer any need based awards- I imagine they still would be able to fill their classes with students who would find a way to pay for tuition.
As long as students are willing to pay whatever they charge- I don't think it will change.
What may change however, is that schoois that * now* offer merit aid to top students, decide that with the increase in applications they no longer need to offer merit to get a good selection of freshman to choose from.
However- they may also go the way of other schools like Colgate and Smith, that tweak need based aid for the students that they really want to enroll.</p>
<p>Tan:</p>
<p>I would have to disagree....if a more affluent student with access or choice in schooling was seen as equivalent to a 'poor' kid with the same achievements, the latter would be, in my opinion, a more significant one--deserving of aid.</p>
<p>Need-aid is not guarenteed by any stretch of the imagination at most schools. So, instead of just having the hurddles to get over in primary and secondary schools, they would have to apply to more selective colleges that guarentee to meet need.</p>
<p>Also, scholarships are specific dollar amounts. They are not usually give out based on the cost of attending a particular school, if they are external.</p>
<p>Internal merit-aid at colleges are a different matter, as it does impact need-based aid. Again, if needy applicants had all their need met, I could see how merit-aid would be beneficial. As only a few schools can promise to meet need, it is clear that even lower-income students are gapped at most schools. </p>
<p>Again, a students achievement on standardized tests is dependent in part on socio-economic class and educational attainment of their parents. So what some would call better performance is instead just continuing the trend that wealth and income provide.</p>
<p>As for using kids to bump up a schools ranking...are you saying that creating that market artificially is a good thing?..that leads to spending more money on apps, more randomness in admissions patterns, more stress for students and parents?! I know we're a status conscious society, but this is a bit much to swallow.</p>
<p>Again, the status quo takes care of its own. Why worry about access for kids that have families that make less than the 80-150k? Because more educated Americans are good for the economy. Because most schools don't guarentee to meet their need. Becuase, they often don't get their full need met by most colleges. Becuase they are gapped, just like the more affluent 80-150k families.</p>
<p>Right, using stats is a different name for SAT. If the other distinctions and achievements tend to be similar, including grades and class rank, guess what affluent kids (and parents) are going to point to? The tests.</p>
<p>But wait, isn't it funny that affluent public and private schools have move to not rank kids to game the system, so they can get into competitive schools. You think the more modestly budgeted schools are as savy about this? I tend not to think so. So at the same time that you speak of fairness, you're speaking of gaining for your own benefit.</p>
<p>As for diversity, many do not think it contributes to the education of others. Have you seen the diversity and AA threads on here?! Everyone is looking for a leg-up 9including affluent kids) and because some good schools have shifted towards merit-aid and away from need-aid to boost their 'performance' on USNews rankings and such, they tend to attract a certain types of students (and parents)...those that can pay most of their own way, and those who would be swayed by a subsidy in the form of merit-aid.</p>
<p>Fairness? Please try not to hide under that cover. Again...read some of the non-fiction text in my earlier post. Gaming the system is great, for those who know the ins-and-outs. The more affluent families have this, it's called legacy, special interest, developmental admits. And, some of these same families do not believe in AA for women and minorities because it affects them. Again, not a surprise. Thank the rankings and ratings which can and is bought, euphamistically of course, by merit-aid...not for educations sake, but to gain in prestige and rank.</p>
<p>Talk about being enticed by a label.
IB</p>
<p>Isleboy,</p>
<p>You make it sound like colleges only want kids who score well on the SAT to bump up their ranking. Surely that is a benefit, but don't you think that they are interested in these bright students for what they can bring to the school?</p>
<p>You make it sound like colleges only want kids who score well on the SAT to bump up their ranking. but don't you think that they are interested in these bright students for what they can bring to the school?
Of course-
students who are intellectually curious and hardworking bring a great deal to the campus.
And schools are also recognizing that stats and scores are not the only way that they can identify those students-
I imagine that is what all those essays are for.
I think my daughter had three essays in her application to Reed along with recommendations from teachers and high school counselors, and had to submitt a graded research paper.</p>
<p>Even our flagship state university is undergoing the process of hand<br>
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265572_admissions05.htmlreviewing%5B/url%5D">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265572_admissions05.htmlreviewing</a> each application , over 16,000 of them :eek:
It makes for a better class though I think.</p>
<p>Oh I just realized that what you were saying is that scores and stats are a good way to identify students who will do well- I guess I disgree-I think it is a time saving way to weed out applicants- but more schools are using other data to put together classes
That isn't to say that these other students aren't as intelligent or more so than students who score high on their entrance exam- its just that colleges also have other measures at their disposal- interviews etc.</p>
<p>Certainly schools consider a number of factors in deciding which students to admit. Some place greater emphasis on the SAT and some ignore it completely apparently. That's up to each school to decide. I'm just saying that it is perfectly valid for a school to conclude that high SAT scores do correlate well with high achievement and place greater emphasis on that factor because of it. Those schools would be doing this because they think that these students bring something very desirable to their campus, not just because it will raise their rank. </p>
<p>I'm sure if each of us were in charge of college admissions at different schools we would do things very differently. I think that there is more than one right way.</p>
<p>ok- I'll go with that-
and that is apparently what we have now
we have schools that offer merit and schools that are need blind- schools that only offer need and assume you have "merit" otherwise they wouldn't admit you and we have schools that are "need aware" because they only have so much aid to go around. Schools that use the FAFSA- that use the PROFILE and schools that also use their own aid forms. Schools that offer tidbits for legacies and athletes and movie starts. Schools that decide they want to increase sports on campus so they offer scholarships to football players, even though it has never been a "football" school. Schools that decide they want to appear more middle of the road, when they are percieved as to the left of William O Douglas, so they overcorrect the aid applications of Baptists from Texas.
If schools want to determine admittance by SAT scores- they can and do.Until recently the UW gave you an admission index according to your GPA and SAT scores that indicated how likely you were to be admitted. Even though applications are up, they changed their policy to be more holistic. If a school doesn't want to spend that much time and energy on reading applications though- it certainly is one way to go.</p>
<p>Perhaps there are schools that believe that the SAT score is a good enough indicator of the type of students that they want to admit that they use it as more than a time-saving tool. There seems to be a caricature of students who score well on the SAT as being automatons who are lacking in personality and whose only appeal is in their ability to test well. This is contrary to my experience, as the students that I've taught with the highest SAT scores are also generally the most curious, interesting, and engaging. </p>
<p>This approach might cause a school to overlook a fabulous student with a lower SAT score, but a more "holistic" approach might lead a school to reject a high-scoring candidate who is not a terrific writer, but who would potentially be an outstanding addition to their school.</p>
<p>There seems to be a caricature of students who score well on the SAT as being automatons who are lacking in personality and whose only appeal is in their ability to test well.</p>
<p>where did you read that?
some students test well- that isn't anything to be ashamed of ;)
I also don't think it says anything about their personality why would it?</p>
<p>holistic" approach might lead a school to reject a high-scoring candidate who is not a terrific writer
couple thoughts on that- you need to be an excellent writer in every discipline. If you aren't by the time you are applying to college, under circumstances where you can take your time and even get feedback, then you may have difficulty in your classes.
My younger daughters innercity public school thinks writing is so important that * every subject* has a writing component- even physical education.
Schools usually give you a lot of areas to illustrate your strengths.
My D had reccomendations from at least two teachers- from her boss & from her college counselor.
She had to submit 3 essays, so if one topic wasn't her strength, she had a chance with the other two. She submitted a research paper ( bio major) and she had an on campus interview as well as an alum interview.
College is certainly a place where you can develop higher level thinking and writing skills, but someone who has a very strong SAT score is really going to have to be a terrible essayist if their application isn't at least given a chance, don't you think?</p>
<p>I've certainly picked up on that attitude about people who score high on the SAT from some people. Am I alone in this?</p>
<p>Almost by definition a student who scores well on the SAT is a capable writer, but they might not succeed in creating an essay that grabs the attention of an admissions officer. Even with the "holistic" approach, certainly there are students who are admitted to schools and are a disappointment, and others that a school would like to have admitted if they knew more. This would also be true, I'm sure, if a school only used SAT scores as a selection method, but I don't know that one method is better than the other.</p>
<p>Almost by definition a student who scores well on the SAT is a capable writer, but they might not succeed in creating an essay that grabs the attention of an admissions officer</p>
<p>I cant argue with that- essays are probably very subjective
My D for example took the "Old" SAT with seperate writing
she scored 790 on the writing portion.( this was in fall of 12th gd)
However when she was tested on her writing ( spring of 11th gd) with another essay for something else- her score identified her with a skill level of several years below her grade.
( luckily this wasn't a college entrance exam ;) )</p>
<p>Actually most colleges use a combination of methods, with respect to the SAT.</p>
<p>I don't have too much of a problem with schools using SAT scores to help select a class. But, the correlation between the verbal score with the HS gpa 'better' predicts first-year performance. The math subscore, less so. Also, the new writing test section rewards those who are fomulatic in their approach to the test. In my instance, I was lucky to be aware of that. I changed how I would approach the prompt based on that info, and it did give me a pretty good score. Would I have modified my writing if my HS (or test prep) did not stress the difference?! Probably not.</p>
<p>I'm not against measuring between candidates with the same background (i.e. within a HS or similar socio-economic category). What seems more problematic is when one is forced to compare a more affluent student to one that is less so. You could look at somewhat objective data (class rank, gpa, essays, SAT II scores, etc...) but it is more likely, than not, that the former would be a stronger candidate because of more options they've had through out HS. I don't begrudge the increased options, but I'm leary of making an assumption that a lower-income kids scores on the SAT I, for instance, are a sign of intelligence or aptitude. So, the ostensibly "fair" score, which merit-aid can reward, is skewed towards the more affluent 80-150k kid. I was well prepped for the tests...so I believe my 'objective' scores did not exactly reflect my 'true' ability. It would have been lower had I taken the tests cold. And, although I was a NMF because of my scores, it too can be seen as a bit suspect--as I did benefit from prep classes at my HS and PR.</p>
<p>I don't believe that intelligence can be boiled down to one number or that there is only one kind of intelligence. So, I do have a bit of a problem when scores on a standardized test are used to determine ability and aptitude. And, you can teach to a test. That's my AP classes. It gives us great scores, but we don't much think for ourselves.</p>
<p>Again, just my opinion.
IB.</p>
<p>IB:</p>
<p>You talk about merit aid being"unfair". What about need aid? If I quit my job or retire, my son's EFC can drop $20K. How exactly did he become more deserving? This is even true, if I do it after he leaves for school...although I imagine it will take a year to kick in. He had the same experiences in life...however one minute he has a much higher need than the next minute?</p>
<p>*What about need aid? If I quit my job or retire, my son's EFC can drop $20K. How exactly did he become more deserving? *</p>
<p>It isn't about being more "deserving" it is about financial resources- if you have $40K or so less coming in than you did before- then you have fewer financial resources available for school .
Merit is about "merit"- and "need" is about need :)
I disagree with IB- I think schools if they see want to construct their available aid that way- should be able to reward for merit- without considering need if they don't want to.
But I imagine the same schools that are need based aid only, will remain so, and I also imagine that additional schools will be added to their ranks, as the numbers of applicants increase ( and as the financial divide widens)</p>
<p>shedevil:</p>
<p>That's where personal ethics come in. It's a choice, whether you are going to game the system to that extent. If you retire...your EFC will be affect because you have less income. It's great if 80-150k families can do this, just to reduce their EFC. Unsually a family making less than 80-150k has little wiggle room to do the same. But, change a system because of the morally/ethically suspect is not the answer. We'd have to have so many more rules and codes we'd all be stiffled.</p>
<p>There are people who cheat, whether in HS or somewhere else. If that's what you think it would take...okay. But, your son, assuming he is near college age or in college, will not lose much except to learn that afflunce can equal gaming the system. </p>
<p>Just like those that game the welfare system to get aid, those that game the system to get a subsidized college education are a bit decietful. Can I control that? Nope. Do I think social welfare or college need-aid programs should be done away with because of the people who game the system? No.</p>
<p>Do I get upset about such gaming, you bet I do, but that's only when I think I'm more derserving or better than someone else. Then I tend look to what others have with a bit of envy and a bit of 'I should have done that/do that to gain an advantage.' Affluent people, poor people, people in-between, can find ways if they want. That is why guidelines are there for aid...so it is more DIFFICULT to game the system.</p>
<p>Choosing to do that is a personal decision. And, it depends on where you draw the line. </p>
<p>For me, I've come to realize that taking prep courses for the tests gave me an advantage (a way to game my score). Do I feel bad about it? Sometimes I do. That is why I have misgivings about merit-aid, that considers the test scores heavily. My parents, on the other hand, believe that the only schools that are worth paying for are the 'Top-20' colleges, nevermind there are schools that are a better fit, and where I would not have had to game the system. BTW, my first choice, would be a safety given my stats but I got waitlisted, while some of my match and reach schools accepted me. My parents, who are usually very level-headed, pushed the ivys....so I had to take the prep courses (they withheld the use of a car) until I was done with PR. I could have protested, but I did not realize that so many adults honestly though that SAT scores or stats were 'objective' measures of achievement or ability?!</p>
<p>BTW, I did read, on my own, the books I recommended in another post. I also did not ignore the other side. I've read Illiberal Education, Black & White, Bell Curve, The Closing of the American Mind, Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel, Wonderland, The Gatekeepers, Slouching towards Gomorrah, The end of Racism, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.</p>
<p>But what has pushed me on the merit-aid issue is this very thread. Typically I tend to be more conservative when talking about issues. But, I've realized that even adults can reinforce the status quo because it is of use--and they are okay with it. No better, no worse than others who do so. But, a little disheartening and disappointing. I just wish it were not so.</p>
<p>Just an opinion.
IB</p>
<p>PS--BTW, I do disagree with Emeraldkity about merit-aid at schools that don't guarentee to meet need to a certain extent. Merit-aid, with an income component, however, is a 'better' format than the one in place now. Again, it's internal versus external merit-aid. And, I do agree that schools can do what they want with their money and define their own policies in the business sense. In the educational sense, if that is a main goal, it would be a bit different. What might make sense in a business model might not in an educational one. Again, thank the over reliance on rankings and ratings.</p>
<p>It's great if 80-150k families can do this, just to reduce their EFC. Unsually a family making less than 80-150k has little wiggle room to do the same.</p>
<p>They can no more afford to retire or quit their jobs than they can pay their EFC. It is about a wash. That is why they aren't able to go to expensive need only schools.</p>
<p>As for as need based kids not being deserving, but needy...there have been arguments in this thread of why needy kids are deserving...about the missed opportunities that they have had.</p>
<p>"Just like those that game the welfare system to get aid, those that game the system to get a subsidized college education are a bit decietful."</p>
<p>I see a big difference in gaming the welfare system to get aid then choosing not to work and receiving need based college aid. There are rules that require people to work if able with the welfare system...after a period of time you get kicked off...not with FAFSA. There is no rule that says you have to work if able before you collect need based college aid. So how is it gaming if people choose to sit at home and receive need based aid? It is very different than welfare.</p>
<p>Unsually<a href="did%20you%20mean%20unusually%20or%20usually?">/i</a> a family making less than 80-150k has little wiggle room to do the same</p>
<p>They can no more afford to retire or quit their jobs than they can pay their EFC. It is about a wash. That is why they aren't able to go to expensive need only schools.*</p>
<p>I have posted that we make less than $80K and D attends a school that meets 100% of need.
It isn't fun to pay our EFC- but unlike some who worry that their children will have it more difficult- with jobs & education than they had it- we feel our kids will have it * better*.</p>
<p>They are already getting much more of an education than we had- because neither of our parents were involved enough to think about what our lives would be like after high school.</p>
<p>Even though I attended a nice suburban high school outside Seattle, I don't recall anyone, ever asking what I was going to do after high school, let alone make sure that I had, had the courses I would have needed for college. Since school was agonizingly tedious, and far from engaging, it isn't a surprise that I never thought about continuing my education.
I wish I had known that even the community college courses I have taken, were much more interesting than high school, even though it was hard to commute and work and raise a family- I would have perhaps pushed more on my own to get the better teachers.</p>
<p>My husbands high school career was a bit better, he was able to take a lot of vocational classes which helped him explore his interests, however it also didn't give him academic support, and although he is very bright, he wasn't given any reason to think that he could do something besides work in an auto body shop.( certainly when we asked his parents to give the kids savings bonds- instead of ridiculously expensive toys for xmas when we were out of work they said " you aren't going to make them go to college are you?"- uh well * yes, yes we are* )</p>
<p>In many schools today however- there optimally are many supports for students to imagine their next steps.
In my daughters school we have African American scholar program- that gives AA students extra support and resources to take challenging classes, we have AVID, again for minority students to get support in getting to the level where they can take college prep classes, and we have College Access now, for low income and minority students to get on a college track.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for my daughter we aren't low income enough for the low income programs and even though we are blue collar workers trying to get our kids an education that doesn't make us enough of a minority to qualify for the other programs ;)</p>
<p>However- I am stubborn and opinionated ( who knew?), and have been pushing the district to consider students with learning & or physical challenges as a diverse group that teachers need to be educated about , just as they offer special training to teach (african american, filipino, sengalese, korean, muslim,vietnamese,hmong,pacific islander, latino, eritrean, congolese, sudanese- jsut some of the groups that they have run special workshops for teacher training lately) other "special" populations.</p>
<p>Many minorities who come to this country see education as a way for their kids to get ahead, so they are pretty focused, even when they have language and cultural difficulties, on encouraging their kids to do well.</p>
<p>There is becoming a widening income gap in this country- but I see education as a way for the lower income population to rise up and for the middle income population not to lose ground.</p>
<p>So while merit- not need based aid, may be more important for the individual, need based aid, might be argued that it benefits a wider population, because by taking one kid- who is low income- whose parents didn't attend college & giving them supports and means to attend college- that has a huge ripple effect. Being first in your famiy to enter college, shows a path that didn't exist before, and hopefully will give others pause to think about further education, even if not college.</p>
<p>By contrast- a student who recieves merit aid- but does not qualify for need based aid- likely was going down that path anyway- lack of merit aid at competitive colleges may prevent him from attending them, but it won't prevent him from attending college.</p>
<p>But I do empathize with those "who don't have need" but don't see how they can afford it.
It feels like a scam has been put over on parents- telling them to put their money in their students name by getting UGTM accounts, or term insurance policies when their babies are born, and workshops and books selling "information" about merit aid.</p>
<p>Yes my d did get a few merit scholarships- I think they did ask about need & about where she wanted to attend school- but they didn't ask for any financial info from parents- they may have just asked what we did for a living.- But as many probably know, many of the merit scholarships are less than $1,000, even if she got a few of them , they are just a drop in the bucket when tuition is over $30,000, and where are the scholarships for after freshman year?</p>
<p>I know my nieces at Colgate got really nice merit scholarships after freshman year, that weren't need based, but not all schools do that. A friend of Ds at Reed, also got an outside award ( but specific to Reed students )to cover her loans ( and also for an internship), but that was primarily merit based & frankly- D's grades at Reed are not merit aid material.</p>
<p>* sorry this is so long- I have a headache trying to get my point out*</p>
<p>So yes I commiserate with those who don't qualify for need, but will have a tough time finding enough merit- but I admit- I am more concerned about my kids- and my family who are really trying to give our kids a better shot than we had.</p>
<p>Shedevil:</p>
<p>"There is no rule that says you have to work if able before you collect need based college aid. So how is it gaming if people choose to sit at home and receive need based aid? It is very different than welfare."</p>
<p>It's gaming because they chose to do so primarily to RECIEVE the subsidy from the college, even as they make $80-150k. On the other hand, those that choose to stay at home for the benefit of their kids over some of their education would obiviously be different. In the former it's purely about monetary gain, while in the latter it's generally about a child's education. I don't have a problem with a parent who chooses to be a stay-at-home mom or dad. I do have a problem with $80-150k parents choosing, for the sake of a college subsidy, to game the system by not working. I hope you're not advocating even bigger government, BTW. There is always a balance politicians must pay attention to. To much money to social welfare programs and they lose votes, too much restrictive legislation and they lose votes. Who do you think gives the most to candidates?! You think they'll bit the hand that supports them?!</p>
<p>BTW $80-150k parents can chose not to work. They'd qualify for more aid, and then be like those who make less than the $80-150k. I don't know about you, but gainning through gaming is pretty unsavory. Again, more affluent people have the choice, while less affluent people often do not. </p>
<p>As for the other financial aid issues...you could always call your representatives and ask for that work requirement (there is a limit to undergraduate need aid) to make it 'fairer' for the affluent. Just like people agitated for the welfare requirements and limits.</p>
<p>How is this different? It's because it does affect you and a kids ability to afford the 'better' schools, nevermind that state schools and community colleges are a viable choice for even affluent kids.</p>
<p>Again, $80-150k income families would then take even more away from the less-affluent. Happened with welfare, could happen with college need-aid. Wow. That's dealing with the problem of educating the lower-income kid.</p>
<p>Just an opinion.
IB</p>