<p><a href=“http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_4259935[/url]”>http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_4259935</a></p>
<p>Sure…he is really saying that
- college selection should be about fit, not prestigous names
- getting into a “top tier” school doesn’t mean a student will be happy and succeed there
- schools that “buy” students by offering financial aid to draw students may increase their rankings ie US News and World Report but those resources might be better directed toward improving the actual learning at the school ie better resources for professors, better professors, etc. </p>
<p>To sum up , the way I read it, colleges and students and parents have made it all about the admissions process and have lost sight of the educational process…</p>
<p>Anyone else want to correct me or enlighten? I just skimmed it so I am sure I missed something</p>
<p>The last para in the article was the only one that puzzled me:</p>
<p>“Our most successful scholarship program today is tied to community service and helps students connect their off-campus experiences with learning in the classroom. We are tying financial aid more closely to service, research and work opportunities.”</p>
<p>Are they saying they’ll proactively award merit dollars to applicants who devoted much time and energy to ECs, or that they’re “awarding” plenty of work/study dollars to students who want to work? Unclear.</p>
<p>They are saying that they are awarding merit aid discounts to applicants who have excelled at community service, research, and work experiences rather than awarding merit aid discounts tied strictly to test scores. </p>
<p>Furthermore, they are saying that students receiving merit aid discounts on the basis of their non-academic experiences seem to contributing more to campus life than those receiving merit discounts based on test scores or academic achievements.</p>
<p>“Most successful scholarship program” does not necessarily mean the one that gives out the most money; without a definition of “successful” they could mean the one that does the most to improve average SAT or the one where the most students graduate or the one where the GPA is highest. We don’t know and they don’t say.</p>
<p>From Rhodes’ website: <a href=“http://www.rhodes.edu/finaid/455.asp[/url]”>http://www.rhodes.edu/finaid/455.asp</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a fellowship program they have, where students who are enrolled get financial aid money for volunteer work, research etc. In other words, the money seems to be tied to what the student does while at Rhodes, not his or her record of service as an undergrad.</p>
<p>I’ll admit to being a little disingenuous in my first post. Truth is, I knew what they meant (having gone to their website) but I was annoyed that the article writer used eduspeak and was unclear. I’ve just come from the SAT Writing thread where everyone is throwing stones at HS English teachers and I’m still touchy. The fact that interesteddad confidently translated the paragraph one way and , conyat, the other way, does seem to prove my point.</p>
<p>I guess I’m just cynical, but I interpreted the article to mean that Rhodes efforts to upgrade the student body by “buying” kids with higher SAT scores just wasn’t paying off with a higher USNews ranking, etc., so they were now going to try something else.</p>
<p>50% admit rate, and 24.5% yield rate last year.</p>
<p>This is the quote from the article that intrigued me:</p>
<p>
I’m not sure what this means. Perhaps some students dropped out or (gasp) took up a trade rather than pursue an intellectual or professional career. Overall, though, it disappoints me when colleges, trustees, or professors suggest they open doors to a world of opportunities for their students but are disappointed when students choose the “wrong” doors.</p>
<p>My guess is that given the low yield rate, not many of the “scholars” they were seeking took them up on the offer, even with a substantial discount off list price, so that the “enrollment management” folks were trying a new tack to fill the seats.</p>
<p>In the 2007 USNews, Rhodes admit rate, selectivity rank, graduation rate and financial resources rank all slipped a bit from 2006.</p>
<p>I believe that they are referring to students who have been given merit scholarships and are currently attending.</p>
<p>They were given the scholarships because they seemed to have potential to really contribute to the college. But instead, they just took the money and aren’t really benefitting the college in any way (through projects/service).</p>
<p>;) (10 characters)</p>