Why do some people object to merit-based aid?

Parents Forum
61

<p>$170,000 figure is with other kids in college. Generally, if there is just one child and the family's income is at that level then they would be responsible for the burden of their childs education. Not unresonable considering those circumstances.</p>

<p>The idea that the norm for middle class households ($100-150k) as defined by some is staggering. Again, the idea is to justify moving from need-based aid to merit-aid because of a "sense of fairness" if kids were judged by academic performance alone. I wish that were the case, where primary and secondary schools were doing a good job and opportunities were somewhat spread evenly, but it is not. That is a problem which does affect where one goes to college. Merit-aid as used by some schools is unsavory because it further hinders low-income students, even though relative to their peers, would be seen as high achievers. That there is not a real push to reduce the gap between say a student in Trenton, NJ and Winnetka, IL is a bit sad. Instead we modify definitions to placate and sooth.</p>

<p>Strange, but the more I think about it, the more I want that to change.</p>

62

<p><<<<<the idea="" is="" to="" justify="" moving="" from="" need-based="" aid="" merit-aid="" because="" of="" a="" "sense="" fairness"="">>>></the></p>

<p>NOBODY is trying to "justify moving from need-based aid to merit-aid" for any reason. People who support merit aid are not interested in eliminating or reducing FA. </p>

<p>And, no one is suggesting that those with 170K incomes should be pursuing merit money. Usually families with those incomes have top tier schools in mind which give minimal or no merit money.</p>

<p>I'm sounding like a broken record but the purpose of merit money is a win/win for the colleges and smart students. (otherwise they wouldn't do it unless a donor mandated it). </p>

<p>Merit money may be the only opportunity for a kid whose family is caught with an unaffordable EFC (for many various reasons -- high debt, expensive housing, other children, income only recently became high and parents are trying to "catch up" with savings and other things, etc). </p>

<p>Yes, some kid's parents may have made irresponsible decisions -- but why punish the kids??? we don't punish the poor if THEIR parents are impoverished because of irresponsible decisions. Oh no!!! We insist on not punishing those kids for their parents actions, but we seem to want to punish middle/upper middle class kids for their parents actions (except if parents divorce, then, again, special rules are made -- non custodial parents don't have to disclose income.)</p>

63

<p>I don't know anyone who is thinking about paying (or having their parents pay) $40,000+ per year for college. The only kids who are even looking at those schools are kids who will get need or merit money so that they will only pay $15-20,000, the same or a somewhat more than public school.</p>

64

<p>artsy: </p>

<p>You may not know any people who will be paying "full freight" for college but there are many who will. They will be paying either outright from current income, from savings, from refinancing their homes or taking out other types of loans.</p>

65

<p>jlauer95:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Now that does explain where you're coming from. Perhaps you need to re-think. So you think the poor are in that situation because they are all irresponsible? Wow. Like saying all affluent individuals inherited their money instead of working for it.</p>

<p>BTW: moving to a more merit-based system of aid (which is what some schools are doing to entice the affluent) will increase the gap between the affluent and everyone else: You cannot restrict merit aid to only the poor and middle class...can you?! So the wealthy (who have been priviledge by attending better schools, having better health care, and better opportunities) also benefit and get a subsidy. And since people who make above $100,000 are a bit above middle class, it's interesting that you do not talk about families who are squeezed like those that make between say $50-100,000. Merit-aid would be great if the wealth do not get subsidized.</p>

<p>It's not a win/win because affluent, smart kids will begin to expect that merit awards are owed to them. As for middle class kids, and low income kids, it would be a win/win...but fewer less affluent kids qualify. Law of unitended consequences. If that is not enough, the affluent are also better able to play-off one college against another. You should be aware of that, especially here on CC.</p>

<p>But, I guess you disagree.
IB</p>

<p>PS--the example of who needed the money because they just recently became high income earner, or parents who needed to "catch up" are also telling, BTW.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
NOBODY is trying to "justify moving from need-based aid to merit-aid" for any reason. People who support merit aid are not interested in eliminating or reducing FA.

[/quote]
My wish would be that money budgeted for merit aid would not effect the money budgeted for financial aid ... if true then I'm totally on the merit aid bandwagan. The bottom line of why I am not a big fan of merit aid is because I believe there is a direct correlation to increases in funding for merit aid meaning there is less money for financial aid. Schools all have budgets and all decide how to spend that budget ... we'll never know the inner workings of those discussions at a school but I can't imagine the two types of aid not being linked in budget conversations ... and if there is a link I'm coming down on the side of financial aid.</p>

67

<p>3togo:</p>

<p>I agree with you.</p>

<p>There should be a means test to a certain extent, but I'm not sure how it could be done without running afoul of recent court battles.</p>

<p>IMHO, one of the ways to do that is to keep merit-aid programs for low and middle-income students (all ranges), and keep need-based aid as the primary means of meeting costs for lower-middle class and low-income families. I would also be okay with some merit aid for the wealthy, as long as they were compared to their affluent peers--although that does introduce more paper work and eat-up time in the process. </p>

<p>Not perfect by any means, but a bit better than the current situation.</p>

<p>Again I agree that the discussions have been more about how to use merit versus need based aid to attract students while raising a schools profile via the rankings.</p>

<p>IB.</p>

68

<p>Isleboy: <<< So you think the poor are in that situation because they are all irresponsible? Wow.>>></p>

<p>"all irresponsible" BOY!!! Where did I write "all responsible". Certainly you would agree that some are responsible for their situation (drugs, alcohol, poor relationship choices, dropping out of school, laziness, etc). My point is that since the kids of the irresponsible poor are never penalized for the choices that their parents make/made, why should the middle/upper middle class kids be punished for the poor choices that their parents made.</p>

<p>Be careful when you "rewrite history" and respond to a "straw man". I suggest that you "quote" someone's words and then respond to THOSE words, not a changed version of their words.</p>

69

<p><<< one of the ways to do that is to keep merit-aid programs for low and middle-income students (all ranges), and keep need-based aid as the primary means of meeting costs for lower-middle class and low-income families. >>></p>

<p>What do you mean by "middle income students (all ranges)" What would your definition of "all ranges" be? </p>

<p>Why would a "low income" person even "need" a merit scholarship -- they get full FA and go to school for free in many cases? By the way, a low income person can qualify for merit (so this already occurs).</p>

70

<p>jlauer95:</p>

<p>Only at schools that guarentee to meet need do low-income students get full aid packages. And not many schools outside the top 25 do that. So they do not get need met in every instance. That is why there's a thing called "gapping", the difference between Cost-of-Attendance minus the aid package. If that does not equal the EFC, there is a gap that the family or student must make up to attend. Hence, even if they get in, it is sometimes difficult to attend for financial reasons--because their need is not met. This also reduces choice to the most selective schools (with need-based policies) where sometimes those students are not as well prepared. So, affluent kids who are well aware of the process are sometimes at an advantage when it comes to admissions.</p>

<p>As for middle income, that often means less than about $100,000. Ralize that is affected by size of family, number in college, etc...The definition is a combination of Census totals in 2000. Middle income as defined here is larger in range (upwards of course).</p>

<p>Under the current system low-income kids sometimes do get merit aid, but it is more usual for affluent kids (as a proportion of the subpopulation) to get it than middle and lower-income students to recieve it.</p>

71

<p>Wow. (Thanks jlauer for the idea) I just figured out that we'll have kids in college continuously for the next 21 years, 7 of those years with two kids in. . .(Is this looking worse than 20 years of diapers?) </p>

<p>I'd be mighty proud to send all 7 of my kids to "lesser" schools as "merit whores," and hoping they'll all qualify as S#1 did! </p>

<p>Not worried, though. H and I both from big families and all sibs went to college on some combination of work study, loans, scholarships, military, parent contribution (less than 25%) and even dropping in and out to work and save $. . .Where there is a will, there's a way. My parents felt that once we were 18, we had to take care of ourselves. We all started working in high school; if we lived at home after 18 they charged us rent; if they loaned us $ they charged interest and made us sign contracts. . . Sounds kind of mean but it made us responsible.</p>

72

<p>actually poor kids are penalized everyday for their parents choices
an extreme example but one that hits close to home because I know the family.
A girl is being raised by her maternal grandmother because her mother is a drug addict and her father is in jail. She didnt have much contact with her fathers family apparently because while father is African american his adoptive mother is white and there were trust/communication issues between the two sides of her family.
The maternal grandmother apparently didn't have a lot of luck raising her, and she( the girl) was murdered in a very sordid episode involving an ex boyfriend. Pretty much the ultimate price was paid for parental irresponsibility.</p>

<p>Nother example maybe more relevant to college admission
In general, suburban schools are better quality, however it is expensive to live in the suburbs, farther away from social and health services for low income families etc. In the city, you take what you get in the form of schools, and families may be too overwhelmed, not be able to work the system to get an effective education for their kids.</p>

<p>One boy in a city school, is very bright and his teachers are encouraging him to attend college, however, when he gets out of school everyday, he has to take care of his younger brothers and sisters, because his single mother is off with her "boyfriend". He starts slipping in his schoolwork, because the adults around him don't support him in continuing his education, and his peers also give him grief for trying to "act white".
Still he manages to apply to college and get accepted to a prestigous school that meets 100% of need.</p>

<p>He is a stronger student the colleges may reason, than a middle/uppermiddle kid from the suburbs with similar grades, that doesn't qualify for much need based aid, because he hasn't had the same starting place.
The kid in the suburbs, obviously has more financial resources if his family doesn't have need, it was easier to do well in school because he was better prepared and his family supported him. He doesn't have to take care of his siblings/work to pay bills after school, instead he might go to a Princeton summer camp, or participate in other extra curriculars after school.</p>

<p>One has a 15 speed gary Fisher bicycle with a Shimano derailleur, the other has a 15 yr old one speed bike from Walmart. If they compete in a 10 mile race and have equal times- who is probably the better rider?</p>

<p>Need based aid honors those students who have worked against all odds to succeed. If colleges want to offer merit aid to them fine, if colleges only want to offer need based aid, that should be their choice.
after all, the schools that offer only need based aid, are hardly hurting for applicants. Thousands of students every year, compete for the chance to pay full price. IF the college decides to offer aid to students who have shown that despite their background, they can benefit from all the resources a Harvard or a Uchicago has to offer- who are we to tell them,that they should reserve some of that money for students who have had more opportunities?</p>

73

<p>Well said Emerald.</p>

74

<p>Actually "rich", "average-income" and "poor" kids are penalized everyday for their parents' poor choices. Alcoholism, drug addiction, verbal/physical/emotional abuse and/or neglect do not know an income bracket.</p>

75

<p>right- but I was responding in particular to this comment
My point is that since the kids of the irresponsible poor are never penalized for the choices that their parents make/made, why should the middle/upper middle class kids be punished for the poor choices that their parents made.</p>

<p>Students who don't have need, even if they have abuse- domestic-emotional-substance in their families, still have greater resources.
They probably have medical insurance, and have more supports in many cases than poverty level students whose families are also suffering from domestic/emotional/substance abuse.
as you probably know help for mental illness is very expensive.
even though we have insurance- it is managed care and we have a choice of 5 psychiatrists to choose from for my daughter. ( she is on medication that her regular provider wont prescribe because she doens't know enough about it)
1 Dr doesn't actually take teen patients, I don't even know why he is on the list
2 is a dr that I have seen in the past, who is not reliable, ( for instance when I took off work for an appt- the doctor neither showed up or called me to to say she wouldn't be coming in)
3 was her current doctor who is even less relable ( when we had a emergency so dire I had to call the police) during business hours, this dr was not reachable and did not call back until the next week( even when the police called her)
4 never has called me back
5 is full and not taking new patients.
We can't afford to spend the $100-$300 a dr bills without insurance so right now she is "in between drs"
We aren't even low income as we make more than the average income in the US, but medical insurance even if your job offers it, still leaves gaps too large for many families to fill</p>

76

<p>I heard that WashU admission isn't need blind and I do know they give merit-based scholarships. Schools are free to do anything that want obviously. But if any school cares about social justice, it <em>should</em> have a need blind admission and is committed to meeting 100% of the demonstrated need of admitted students first and if there's money left, they can give out as merit-based ones. But I bet there are only very few schools, if any, that have that much money to do both at the same time. Often, merit-based scholarships come at the expense of need-based ones.</p>

<p>That's the reason Northwestern does not award merit-based ones:
<a href="http://www.ugadm.northwestern.edu/freshman/financing/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ugadm.northwestern.edu/freshman/financing/&lt;/a>

[quote]
The University does not award its scholarships based on academic merit; it reserves this assistance for students who otherwise would not be able to afford to attend.

[/quote]
</p>

77

<p>There is nothing wrong with merit aid.</p>

<p>The current system gives double breaks to socially disadvantaged kids:</p>

<p>once during admission and then in financing.</p>

<p>NU is bending the truth a bit (I know my S was admitted there). They have a funny way of calculating EFC. We qualified for zero interest loans. My friend's son - similar $ background, but one extra child - got some in grants (~ 8k) and rest in zero percent loans. I don't remember when the loans need to be repaid.</p>

78

<p>"Why would a "low income" person even "need" a merit scholarship -- they get full FA and go to school for free in many cases? By the way, a low income person can qualify for merit (so this already occurs)."</p>

<p>A family with a low (or true middle class) income would need a merit scholarship for the same reason a more well-off family would--they are unable to meet their EFC. For a family in my income bracket, however, merit scholarships usually simply reduce the need-based component of the financial aid package. Do you believe that it is easier for those making $50K to 80K to meet their EFC than those making twice as much? </p>

<p>While I have mixed feelings about merit aid, this is the aspect that I feel is most unfair. For those wealthy enough to not qualify for financial aid, merit awards reduce the EFC. For those less well-off, they reduce other aid (and if it is from the college itself, it usually reduces need-based grant $) and the EFC remains the same. In other words, poorer people are expected to meet their EFC regardless of merit aid, and the only way around it is if they are able to garner so much merit aid that it exceeds their need. Fortunately some schools do remove loan and work study when outside awards are figured in, which was a big help with my oldest son.</p>

79

<p>Nwest: </p>

<p>I was talking about a "low income" family... such a family does not have an EFC. I'm not talking about middle class families that have an unaffordable EFC. </p>

<p>I wasn't mixing up low income with middle class</p>

80

<p>I realize that Jlauer, but my point is that people of all income levels may struggle with meeting their EFC, but merit aid helps mainly the well-off. I have heard that even those with an EFC of $0 can have difficulties, since the student's inclome has previously helped meet household expenses. Difficulties also arise when schools do not give packages that fully cover books, expenses, and travel. I am not sure at what income level an EFC drops to $0, but I suspect there are "low income" families that do have an EFC and do have difficulty meeting it.</p>