<p>
</p>
<p>I prefer need-based aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may not be cheaper private schools, I agree - and this is a different problem all together. But there are cheaper public schools, especially in great states (though not everyone is so lucky). The problems in this system are multifaceted. They’re not going to be mitigated by any one reform.</p>
<p>
How would you award that? Straight up based on income? Would you take into account whether or not the family had employment or the ability to have employment? Would you be concerned that you might incentivize irresponsible finances?</p>
<p>
In terms of a colleges finances, would it be better to have a student who pays $30,000 out of the $50,000 tuition or to not have that student at all? What if that was the case hundreds of times in each admission year? At what point would the loss of that tuition be too great of a loss? Again, I don’t have the answer, just throwing some things out there.</p>
<p>“How would you award that? Straight up based on income?”</p>
<p>Income and assets, as determined by FAFSA, PROFILE, IRS, whatever means we determine to be reasonable. Don’t penalize the student for the parents’ failure to thrive, whatever the reason. Give the motivated, accomplished student an opportunity to break the poverty cycle.</p>
<p>
Wouldn’t that imply a merit component to the award, as well?</p>
<p>If you don’t hold screw-up parents responsible, why should motivated and accomplished parents be held to a different standard?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Income and assets, with small cost of living allowances. I’d also like to take health expenses into account.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unemployment is reflected in income. “Ability to have employment” is fickle at best.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People who make less pay less. This is already the system. Therefore, you might think that having a low-income has been incentivized. I haven’t noticed many posters on these boards dropping their jobs and going unemployed for the sake of college expenses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Getting into the college of choice is already the merit component.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not every higher-income parent is motivated; not every low-income parent is a screw-up.</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t that imply a merit component to the award, as well?”</p>
<p>I view admission to a top school being the merit component.</p>
<p>“If you don’t hold screw-up parents responsible, why should motivated and accomplished parents be held to a different standard?”</p>
<p>Because college money is scarce. It’s like Jefferson and taxes, paying according to our ability to pay.</p>
<p>The point I’m trying to make is if you lose the kids who might have come for, say, a $5000 scholarship and then pay $35,000, is that necessarily a good thing?</p>
<p>
Sounds an awful lot like Karl Marx.</p>
<p>I’m good with helping those kids who have done the right thing to achieve, but I don’t think dollars on a tax form necessarily tell the whole story. It often happens that folks with the same income make different choices and sacrifice hard to save for their kids. Shouldn’t those poor people be rewarded, assisted, honored? What about people who are not educated and live in the cycle of poverty but want so much for their kids to do better that they work two jobs? Shouldn’t they be honored, assisted, rewarded? Don’t we all know people who take expensive vacations, drive expensive cars, buy houses they can’t really afford. Are those the people who should benefit from the limited pool of money? It’s one of those situations where the outcome of those good intentions might not be what was hoped for.</p>
<p>
Yes, it’s surprising how “liberal” some of the founders were, in rebellion of conservative England.
They will get the former merit money moved to financial aid.
I agree, and that’s why some want merit money moved to financial aid, so that those with high incomes who squander it (and would then be filtered out by FAFSA, PROFILE, IRS) don’t suck up money that could have gone to needy students.</p>
<p>If higher income people squander the income, aren’t they then “needy” on paper?</p>
<p>Can you point to a specific source for the Jefferson quote?</p>
<p>“If higher income people squander the income, aren’t they then “needy” on paper?”</p>
<p>Not according to FAFSA, PROFILE, IRS.</p>
<p>“Can you point to a specific source for the Jefferson quote?”</p>
<p>Where would we be without google?</p>
<p>Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.</p>
<p>[The</a> American Income Tax - Chapter 18 - Principles of Taxation](<a href=“http://www.simpleliberty.org/tait/principles_of_taxation.htm]The”>http://www.simpleliberty.org/tait/principles_of_taxation.htm)</p>
<p>That’s not exactly what you posted above, vossron, but I get your point.</p>
<p>
Well that would depend on the particular circumstances, wouldn’t it?</p>
<p>
Let me understand how this would work. Two identical (stats, GPA SAT/ACT,EC) applicants are accepted into the same college (your merit component) but only the poorer of the two can enroll? That is MORE equitable to the applicants?
“why should motivated and accomplished parents be held to a different standard?”</p>
<p>“if you lose the kids who might have come for, say, a $5000 scholarship and then pay $35,000, is that necessarily a good thing?”</p>
<p>Obviously the need blind, 100% need met, no merit colleges think so. If it wasn’t in their best interests, they wouldn’t do it.</p>
<p>
We’re talking about an across the board, everywhere, policy, not just the wealthiest schools. In the current situation, if you don’t like the cost, go somewhere less prestigious and get some money. The argument here is what happens if there is no merit money anywhere.</p>
<p>“Two identical (stats, GPA SAT/ACT,EC) applicants are accepted into the same college (your merit component) but only the poorer of the two can enroll?”</p>
<p>They both enroll, but the poorer one pays less (assuming they both don’t pay zero).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see how enrollment models would be tweaked if admissions was based on merit (and hence need-blind) and all merit aid monies were converted to need-based. The school could choose to award FA in several ways. For example, if admission is a measure of merit, rank the admitted students in merit order, then go down the list, awarding as much money as the FA methodology says is needed to cover the amount between the EFC and COA. When the money runs out, everyone at a lower merit level is gapped. </p>
<p>Alternatively, rank the admitted students by the size of the award needed, and try to fill the largest need first. Or, try to get as many students as possible by spreading the money evenly. Or try to gap everyone by as little as possible. Lots of possibilities, all of which would change how the enrollment management people do their work. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only do they “think so”, they can “afford so.” Schools that used to be need blind had to reluctantly switch to need-aware admissions because their endowments dropped. Other schools never had enough of an endowment to be need blind.</p>
<p>New new amount of financial aid is the old amount of financial aid plus the old amount of merit money. The same total amount of money is available, but those who truly don’t need it no longer get any. Those who need it get more than they did before (unless their EFC were already zero).</p>
<p>How would you decide who truly needs it?</p>
<p>My next door neighbor has no income. However, they live in an apartment owned by the relative so they pay no rent or utilities. They receive food stamps and assorted other needed services. The wife works off-the-books sometimes for their cigarette and beer money. </p>
<p>The other family on the block has started a business. Their take home income was less than $18,000 last year and they did receive some services, but they do have rent to pay and utilities. I can’t say in any fair sense that the people with zero income have more true need than the other family. I really think the second family’s child could have used a helping hand every bit as much. As a member of society, I think the kid from the second family is much more likely to become a contributing member, innate intelligence aside, because the first kid is already angry because of the family’s lifestyle and the likelihood of a great work ethic for him isn’t very high.</p>
<p>Why don’t we just take over all the private colleges and make them all public colleges?!</p>
<p>It would be so much easier in the long run.</p>
<p>When colleges in the State of California begin taking larger numbers of out of state students to balance the budget, at the expense of in-state students (which they did this year), then you have to realize that it doesn’t make any difference if you get rid of merit scholarships in the big picture.</p>
<p>The big picture is that public colleges are dependent on state tax dollars and tuition fees. When the money coming in isn’t enough, they have to get creative - cut programs, classes or offer more spots to out of state full tuition pay students. </p>
<p>This trickles down to the lesser tier public colleges, and yes, even the community colleges.</p>
<p>Taking away merit money from students applying to colleges is a feel good solution that won’t solve this problem. We want to help those that are the poorest, so they get an education. Nobody wants to harm those students. They need a break. </p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>But merit money often helps those in the middle, most. The vast majority of the students attending four year colleges are in the middle of the pack, not on either financial income extreme. Those that don’t qualify for a Cal Grant, or Pell Grants, the ones that have an EFC of $10 or $20K per year. The ones that get offered loans as the bulk of their financial aid package, with nary a grant or free money in sight.</p>
<p>Merit scholarships have changed the equation for students in the middle. Colleges know this - especially those outside of the HYPS arena. They can draw better students, while at the same time offering students a competitive pricing package that will get them to choose College X instead of State College Y. </p>
<p>Just to reiterate - colleges that are private have the benefit of distributing monies however they want. Often, they are competitive with public institutions. A student with a lower family income may be able to afford a private college easier than a public one with need based grants or merit scholarships…just like a middle class kid can.</p>
<p>“How would you decide who truly needs it?”</p>
<p>The schools can decide where each draws its EFC line. The goal is to lower the EFC for non-wealthy students.</p>