<p>Alemom – Please do not get impatient or defensive merely because I have questioned the choices USC makes about how to distribute merit vs. need-based aid. USC is a terrific school and we are thrilled that our son will be attending in the fall. We are also enormously grateful for the merit aid we have received. And we understand USC’s motivation (and that of other schools) for using merit aid to attract high-performing students. This practice is certainly widespread and is fueled by the pressure to compete in the US News rankings. </p>
<pre><code> However, the fact is that when a school chooses to devote a significant portion of its resources to merit aid, there is less money available for need-based aid. And as USC’s applicant pool has become more competitive, the difference in academic credentials between those who receive merit aid and those who do not has become less significant. Regardless of whether USC meets 100% of demonstrated need, the EFC is not always an accurate reflection of what families can really afford to pay. And we all know that there are some students who would dearly love to attend USC who cannot do so because of financial concerns. I worry, therefore, that the school is accessible primarily to the very wealthy, the very needy, and those who have near-perfect test scores.
The issue I raise here is not unique to USC. It is an issue at any school that devotes significant resources to merit aid. The question is whether there is a more equitable way to allocate resources -- either by giving merit aid to more students in smaller amounts or by giving more generous need-based grants. This policy issue is an important one and worth discussing. USC is a great institution, but that doesn't mean that we can't question its priorities or engage in a dialogue about how to make it an even better institution.
</code></pre>