<p>jlauer:</p>
<p>from your earlier post:</p>
<p>"Why don't you get off that island and come to the mainland so we can each give you a quarter to buy yourself a clue."</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>I object to the assumption that the needy student is better served than the merit student. That all needy students are "poor" and all merit students are "affluent". My DS is actually a merit student (NMF) and a need student. I've said this before...but I guess we are all repeating ourselves. Two kids can grow up next door to each other and go to the same high school, wear the same clothes, and have the same experiences but have widely different EFCs due to their parents' choices. Where they go to college is largely determined by their EFC. Kids with little or no EFC go for the gold. Kids with high EFC go to state schools. Not sure why the kid with the lower EFC is better served.</p>
<p>Saying that someone's ideas are wrong headed is not attacking anyone's "character". "Wrong headed" means that a point has been formed from a wrong thought process. That has nothing to do with one's character. A person can have have a well-formed character and still be "wrongheaded" in his/her ideas.</p>
<p>she devil</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Two kids can grow up next door to each other and go to the same high school, wear the same clothes, and have the same experiences but have widely different EFCs due to their parents' choices. <<<</p> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm rather new here, so can you explain what you mean by "their parent's choices". I know there are millions of scenarios, but a family where mom just went back to work and dad got a promotion which puts them into that level of income where EFC is non-existent, this family has not had the opportunity to save over the last 18 years... how is it you don't see that the "needy" student has the advantage?</p>
<p>Crazyla:</p>
<p>Actually, I must appologize, it was in another post. :)</p>
<p>Jlauer95: </p>
<p>Character</p>
<p>char·ac·ter (kăr'ək-tər)</p>
<p>[Middle English carecter, distinctive mark, imprint on the soul, from Old French caractere, from Latin charactēr, from Greek kharaktēr, from kharassein, to inscribe, from kharax, kharak-, pointed stick.]
noun </p>
<ol>
<li>The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another. See synonyms at disposition</li>
<li>A distinguishing feature or attribute, as of an individual, group, or category. See synonyms at quality</li>
<li>Genetics A structure, function, or attribute determined by a gene or group of genes.</li>
<li>Moral or ethical strength.</li>
<li>A description of a person's attributes, traits, or abilities.</li>
<li>A formal written statement as to competency and dependability, given by an employer to a former employee; a recommendation.</li>
<li>Public estimation of someone; reputation: personal attacks that damaged her character.</li>
<li>Status or role; capacity: in his character as the father.
9.
1. A notable or well-known person; a personage.
2. A person, especially one who is peculiar or eccentric: a shady character; catcalls from some character in the back row.
10.
1. A person portrayed in an artistic piece, such as a drama or novel.
2. Characterization in fiction or drama: a script that is weak in plot but strong in character.
<ol>
<li>A mark or symbol used in a writing system.</li>
<li>Computer Science
<ol>
<li>One of a set of symbols, such as letters or numbers, that are arranged to express information.</li>
<li>The numerical code representing such a character. </li>
</ol></li>
<li>A style of printing or writing.</li>
<li>A symbol used in secret writing; a cipher or code. </li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>adjective </p>
<ol>
<li>Of or relating to one's character.
2.
1. Specializing in the interpretation of often minor roles that emphasize fixed personality traits or specific physical characteristics: a character actor.
2. Of or relating to the interpretation of such roles by an actor: the character part of the hero's devoted mother.</li>
<li>Dedicated to the portrayal of a person with regard to distinguishing psychological or physical features: a character sketch.</li>
<li>Law Of or relating to a person who gives testimony as to the moral and ethical reputation or behavior of one engaged in a lawsuit: a character witness.</li>
</ol>
<p>idioms</p>
<p>in character
Consistent with someone's general character or behavior: behavior that was totally in character.
out of character</p>
<h2> Inconsistent with someone's general character or behavior: a response so much out of character that it amazed me.</h2>
<p>Worngheaded</p>
<p>adj</p>
<ol>
<li>obstinately perverse in judgment or opinion: "a wrongheaded policy"</li>
</ol>
<hr>
<p>Pretty sure it could be seen as an assult on my character to call me wrongheaded.
IB</p>
<p>IB, I have always heard that "liberals" get very defensive. But I don't think I ever used that term, you did.</p>
<p>Crazyla:</p>
<p>No...the liberal term was tossed at me by another poster, which is why I extended to you a sinsere apology in the tread before this one. :)</p>
<p>I am chagrinned.</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>PS--I've heard that too. ;)</p>
<p>IB, when will technology keep up with our fast fingers? That is another forum altogether. Thanks.</p>
<p>Dunno. Hopefully soon. :)</p>
<p>It's funny, when I read some of my posts...how different some things seem. I'm not always careful when I'm trying to get a thought out. Like the welfare example, for instance. I just meant to point out that both social welfare programs and the distribution of merit-aid at public colleges to sometimes affluent kids, rely on a tax base to support it.</p>
<p>Even if a less-affluent kid does not directly benefit from subsidizing merit-based awards at state schools, he or she or the parents pay a proportion of the cost in terms of taxes gathered over the long haul. With social welfare programs (many with qualifications as shedevil pointed out), the more affluent household does not directly benefit from the subsidy, but it does subside after a few years (i.e. welfare reform of 1996).</p>
<p>I also do not mean to imply that there is NO benefit. Likewise, I just am a bit dissapointed by the move towards internal merit-aid and away from need-aid within the last ten years.</p>
<p>Anyhow....just wanted to clarify a little bit.</p>
<p>Now back to the debate. ;)</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>Crazyla- </p>
<p>"Not sure why the kid with the lower EFC is better served."</p>
<p>"a family where mom just went back to work and dad got a promotion which puts them into that level of income where EFC is non-existent"</p>
<p>Yes, the needy student is better served by the current system and I'm not sure why many people think this is right. It is not a rich versus poor issue. Only something like 4% of Harvard's students are from families with household incomes of less $40K. Merit aid is often painted as taking from the "poor". I see it as taking from someone with a lower EFC at a particular moment in time. But they might not live any worse off than we do.</p>
<p>Shedevil:</p>
<p>Harvard does not give merit-aid, although they can preferencially package awards.</p>
<p>At schools that do not guarentee to meet need, it is an issue with the tension being the mix of merit-aid versus need-aid.</p>
<p>The needy kid is not better served by the current system. Ten years ago there was far less merit-aid, and schools like Washington University did meet need.</p>
<p>It is a rich-poor issue, to use your words. Aid at most schools, that do not guarentee to meet need, internal merit-aid does detract from need-based awards because of financial aid budgets are LIMITED.</p>
<p>You agree than it AFFECTS someone with a lower EFC, but you're upset that they live like someone in the $80-150k range?! If they are making...say the average of $45,000, how exactly can they live like they make $80-150k?</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>My point is that they are not making the medium of $45K. If there is less money to spend, I assume that the ones that would be affected are the ones just barely qualifying for aid, not the ones that are the first to qualify.</p>
<p>Shedevil:</p>
<p>If there is less money to spend, how are people making $60-70k living like $80-150k people (given that tax rates are similar)?</p>
<p>Most new $60-70k households would qualify for aid unless they had large assets.</p>
<p>BTW, even $80k families qualify for some aid according to the FAFSA and CSS. That their need is met is the question mark, isn't it?! Especially at schools that do not guarentee to meet need. </p>
<p>So, if one knows that a school gaps, why would that be a serious option (a leading question)?</p>
<p>IB</p>
<p>There are lots of ways people with $60K could be living like people with incomes of $100K. Assume a father earns $60K and the mom stays home. Then when all the kids get in high school, the mom gets a job making $40K. They don't move. They don't go out and buy a new car. They save for retirement and college. Something that was impossible before. So, they lifestyle doesn't change. They may be more "able" to pay...but the kids have had the same experiences in life.</p>
<p>Many people finance their lifestyle with debt. Some families give a substantial amount of their income away to charities, even though they aren't rich.</p>
<p>I just wish that FAFSA took into account a family's earning history. Afterall, a family that had a lower income for YEARS but only recently has had a family income increase (raise, promotion or second income) wasn't able to build up a big college savings account over the years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>>>since I'm Pres and my school has need blind admissions I'm not sure how the kid with the higher EFC is more qualified<<<</p>
<p>I'm saying that for certain income levels (yes that 'middle income' that is so vague) the formulas really s**** in determining EFC. A family with 2 working parents that just hit that income line are being told they can contribute full EFC which in most cases is unrealistic.
[/quote]
No big argument there ... I'm not a big fan of the merit aid approach to resolve this issue because a minority of middle class fmailies stuck in this bind will hit the big win (merit scholarship) while the other families in the bind, if they do not win a merit schoalrship, are still stuck in the bind. To me what's a better solution ... </p>
<p>First, push pressure on the group that determines the FAFSA to make the process much more transparent and include community voices so the FAFSA guidelines are more family friendly.</p>
<p>Second, for schools to go beyond 100% of need ... if they think the FAFSA guidelines are limiting don't select a few families to help a lot ... help all the families some.</p>
<p>But that is just me ... and I don't have a vote in this mess</p>
<p>"I just wish that FAFSA took into account a family's earning history."</p>
<p>I wish that both parents had some income protection.</p>
<p>jlauer & shedevil:</p>
<p>I agree as well in principle. But, that would mean more redtape, larger government, and more pressure to raise taxes.</p>
<p>I understand about recent promotions and such. I was very lucky to have parents whose income increased somewhat gradually. The system is definitely not perfect. And, I do like external merit-aid.</p>
<p>I've seen both sides of the debate, but I had to pick a position (it was difficult) that may have 'hurt' me and some of my friends in the short-term in order that someone else could have the amazing experiences I've had throughout my short life, thanks in part to my parents generosity. I think that college admissions and attendance is one of the few times that I would know what many lower-income URMs face everyday--since the time they were born. For me, that is my justification.</p>
<p>Intellectually it makes some sense, but emotionally I sometimes disagree (with myself). I have had a couple of friends experience the same issues during their college search, but I've also had quite a number of affluent friends who did know how to game the system and get internal merit-aid from schools known to be on th prowl for higher USNews rankings or for more visibility. So I empathize strongly in both directions.</p>
<p>I agree with 3togo about being more transparent with guidelines. (See, you are better at boiling down the point. ;) )</p>
<p>Sincerely,
IB</p>
<p>I think we have to stop thinking that "internal merit aid" and FA are a "zero sum" game which assumes that there is/will be a finite amount available so if one gets more than the other gets less. It's just not what happens in reality.</p>
<p>Say "U of State" estimates that it has 100M to give out
It gives 80 M to FA (FA is always the much bigger amount)
It gives 20 M to merit (always a much smaller number)</p>
<p>BUT THEN!!!!..... rich alumin and rich corps looking for a place to donate some case look over the field of schools and see that "U of State" has a bunch of brainies (that received merit $$$) working on degrees in XXX, YYY, and ZZZ which are going to be much needed in this country and for their companies. </p>
<p>So.... The Richies and Corp Biggies decide to give $100 million to that school's foundation -- which means that the 20 mil that was given to those merit kids has now been more than made up with by those donations AND future "needy kids" will be able to receive more than $80 M. When this happens, year after year, it means that the FA kids end up having MORE money available to them!!!! Those extra donations would not have come forth if it wasn't for those brainy merit kids.</p>
<p>That is why it is NOT a zero sum game. The merit $$$ Brainies & their majors/research are an enticement for "deep pockets" do donate big $$$$</p>