<p>What's the purpose of an educational institution? You can watch professional teams play!</p>
<p>If colleges are willing to pay scholarships to students for how far they can throw a ball or how high they can pole vault, regardless of the family's financial need, I don't see what's wrong with them paying to attract students whose gifts are cerebral rather than physical. And isn't a standardized, national test a logical way to find these students? It always bothers me when people disparage the SAT and cite the fact that affluent students can spend thousands on what the article called "mind steroids" to prep for it. True, but prepping only can do so much to boost scores. National merit scholars deserve to be recognized for their intellectual ability; for the most part, it represents years of avid reading and challenging themselves, not merely attending a summer crash course. Why is there never any hand-wringing over the thousands of dollars that parents with athletes spend on individualized coaching and camps to give their students every advantage in their sport? I'd be interested to know if Drew University recruits athletes and if they pay to get them, regardless of need.</p>
<p>Like so many others who go out on limbs, I seriously doubt this guy will last at Drew. The middle class seeking merit aid are a powerful lobby. It is not at all that I disagree, I actually agree, but those his policies will benefit are a silent minority.</p>
<p>"Because they can help bring in $$$$$$$$ in athletic revenue. Not many will pay to watch someone do math problems."</p>
<p>Not only athletic revenue. General enthusiasm and donations increase when a team does well, such as winning NCAA tournament. People just want to open their wallets more. That benefits everyone, not just the athletic departments. And athletic events add excitement and spirit to campus life.</p>
<p>At least athletic prowess is the result of years of skill development and consistent exceptional performance. Merit scholarships are invariably linked to an SAT score, which is a one shot deal. No one really knows if a score is a true indicator of potential or the result of great tutoring (and a little luck).</p>
<p>collegein07:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I may have not gone to an elite school like williams but I do understand that poor kids could do score in SAT better if they want to work harder. And then they can do in midddle school. So collegeboard may say whatever data they want to produce.
[/quote]
You are correct that poor kids can score higher on the SATs if they work harder. But it is as if the poor kid has to make up in hard work what he lacks in money. A rich kid has to really bust his rump to score well. But a poor kid must bust his rump beyond belief to score just as well. Oftentimes, poor kids live in circumstances that just will not allow them to focus that much on one thing, let alone something as abstract as academics. And when they leave home for college, they often dont have the support back home that I think is necessary for him to be successful.</p>
<p>I think one solution may be to try to help the poor, especially in the URM poor, adopt your value of making up for a lack of money with hard work and making the sacrifices necessary to support this hard work. The problem is, when we talk to the poor about the need for hard work, we often belittle them and treat them as if they are lazy when in fact they are nothing of the sort.</p>
<p>I was curious and looked up Drew. The SAT's for admitted students were not high, GPA's were not high, and the selectivity was not high. What was high was the cost of attendence at over $40k.</p>
<p>Barrons- I have no problem with athletic scholarships-but athletes have never:
cured a disease, won a Nobel Prize, designed a spaceship, etc... Also, why do you assume that every kid from a good family didn't get that way through hard work and intelligence? Not everything is a free ride. Personally, I go to a private hs, where the work is much harder than the local public, and much more is expected. Even with benefits of a good family, test books, review courses, "tutor sessions", I know people who work and work and still they cannot do as well as a poor kid with a prep book from his library.
Frankly, if someone can cure cancer, I'd don't care if they come from a poor or middle class family or even if their name is Rockefeller.</p>
<p>collegein07, your evidence for your argument comes from a small sample of students who have been recognized specifically for their achievements in relation to their family income. You can't draw universal conclusions from a small, carefully selected sample. </p>
<p>Students from all educational and income backgrounds can and do achieve scores in the full range of the bell curve, from lowest to highest. But there is plenty of statistical evidence that shows that higher educational levels of parents and higher family income contribute to higher SAT scores. </p>
<p>Also, bear in mind that though the term "low income" is often used interchangeably with "disadvantaged", low income is just one type of disadvantage. Many low income students also struggle against other impediments to academic success. There are some things that are very difficult to overcome through hard work alone, the first being not even comprehending what the options are in the first place.</p>
<p>I put no moral value on the athletic scholies--it just is a fact. I can name an athlete who became a Supreme Court Justice ( Byron Whizzer White-Colorado football) and I am sure a few Nobel winners and scientists were also athletes.</p>
<p>since physical skill and conditioning improves intellectual performance, I imagine that if we looked we could find many who were talented in more than one arena
I beleive that my daughters intelligence was increased by the efforts that we made to increase her gross motor skills ( she had delay and was a very early premie)
Recent studies also show that physical exercise is one way to fend off deterioating brain function of aging</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are some things that are very difficult to overcome through hard work alone, the first being not even comprehending what the options are in the first place.
[/quote]
Yup. And also, in some segments of our population there are cultural poisons, linked to racism, that pointedly influence kids away from good academic performance. A very bright kid could be born in a black family that thinks reading and exploring certain academic disciplines is acting white, for example. That kid will have one tough time even studying, let alone exploring academics for the joy of it. He has to slog through a lot just to access what is commonly afforded by the structure of his wealthier counterparts circumstances. I think for these reasons, and others like them, poor people will generally perform lower academically than the rich. I also think the same sorts of pressures probably exist in certain racial groups regardless of wealth, so that a rich black kid in many cases is gonna feel a lot more internal heat than a poor white kid.</p>
<p>I dont think the solution is to make the work easier for the poor guy or anyone else. And with some anger I think some top schools have done this, in the process lowering their standards. I dont think I have a problem with the SAT requirement because it puts a clear bar in front of everyone and challenges them to meet it. But I really dont think this test should be the only factor in college admissions. If a poor kid shows the chutzpah required to perform even close to rich kids, I think it is reasonable to give him a looksee because that kid has done something quite amazing.</p>
<p>jrzzmom,</p>
<p>I do understand what you, and the professor, are saying. I have no problem with need based aid, to give some people access to something for which they are qualified but lack the funds. But I don't think merit scholarships or grants should be denigrated because merit is considered an elitist word. My son has a ridiculously high IQ, two lawyers for parents, and access to a great education -- short of curing cancer AND AIDS by 15, I'm not sure how someone with his "start" can ever move up from there! There simply isn't that far for him to travel. But I'd like someone to look at him and say, you didn't rest on natural ability, you didn't take the easy way out, you worked your butt off in all your classes and all your teachers remarked on your commitment and dedication (even if it was Acting or PE). Not, both your parents went to Grad School and you went to private school, so you don't "need" any acknowledgment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not, both your parents went to Grad School and you went to private school, so you don't "need" any acknowledgment.
[/quote]
But does the acknowledgment need to come in the form of money? Could anything else suffice?</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, </p>
<p>I'd take a plaque, trophy or ribbon as well, but in this society we do usually reward people with money. Maybe, free textbooks since the schools know he'll actually use them. </p>
<p>I don't want him dismissed as just well off and genetically lucky -- there's a person behind there who took the hardest classes (especially in his least favorite subject, math) and always brought something to every class and didn't just go through the motions. There should be a way to say nice job, well done. But, I guess, that's what mom's for.</p>
<p>"There should be a way to say nice job, well done. But, I guess, that's what mom's for."</p>
<p>And also, the doors of the finest colleges opened for him, great grad school opportunities after that, and, even more than these, the actual, intrinsic reward which comes from the possessing and the developing of that great mind.</p>
<p>BurnThis:</p>
<p>Apart from my S not going to private school and our not being lawyers, you are describing my S. The acknowledgement he got was in being admitted to two of the most selective schools in the country--the only two to which he applied. We did not think of applying to schools where he would have gotten merit money because we thought we could afford the full fare (with loans) and we did not think it was fair for us to deprive someone else of the funds that s/he would really need to attend that college.</p>
<p>So, in answer to the question Drosselmeier posed, the "something else" did suffice. It was being admitted. I am very sure that his hard work was acknowledged by his high school teachers as well as by the adcoms. And that's enough for us. And yes, there's always mom to pat him on the back between bouts of nagging about messiness, forgetfulness, and so forth. That, too, is what mom's for.</p>
<p>I just wrote a post nearly identical to marite's, except in our case, two of my kids were accepted to their #1 choices, both highly selective. Both of my kids were offered monetary enticements from other schools; the fact that they passed them up in favor of schools that didn't doesn't negate the "acknowledgements."</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>What messages are we parents sending to our children about their self-worth when we worship those exams? <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I, as a parent, do not worship the SAT and do not believe that my D's opinion of herself is based on her SAT score. BUT--as parents, we realized how important these scores could be as part of her application process/success. No worship, just a neccessary evil--and that is how we portrayed the test to our D--a hurdle she had to go over as part of the college application trial.</p>
<p>Schools give merit money to entice top applicants to attend, which makes their school more attractive to other top students down the road. USC is proof that this approach is very good for the institution in the long run. This university is now thought of as a serious school for serious students. Some of the best from my son's HS will attend. It wasn't too many years ago when I don't think these same kids would have considered SC "good enough." That has changed, and I''m sure the environment, not just the ranking, reflects the change in student body.
While I'm not thrilled with the testing scene - especially now that the CB has added another hour to the test, I am suspicious when a school whose scores are not very high complains about the testing rigors. Since Drew students are not required to score 1500s, I don't think Drew applicants need to be too compuslive about it. So what's the beef? I wonder if it's that they don't like being compared to other schools with higher average scores rather than their concern for their students.</p>
<p>It is "democratic" to offer merit scholarships. It would be undemocratic to insist, mandate, or pressure others to not offer merit scholarships (or athletic scholarships, or band scholarships, or whatever).</p>