<p>Agreed. That’s a means, not an end. What’s the end? It could be to make it possible for more students to be able to afford to attend the college. it could be to make it possible for the poorest/neediest students to be able to attend the college. It could be to reduce indebtedness for graduates so they were able to pursue grad school or low-paying careers. It could be to be perceived as being more ‘fair’ in awarding aid. Whatever. Each option calls for a different way of distributing limited aid dollars, and creates some winners and some losers.</p>
No, which student enrolls will be determined by what their parents can or are willing to pay. Not the individual “merit” of the students. The “wealthier” student’s family may not be able to afford to pay anything despite their income. Perhaps they have too much debt because of THEIR bad financial decisions. Wouldn’t that penalize a student because of the financial decisions his parents made? Would a students whose parents are unemployed and collecting welfare/food stamps be equally responsible for his PARENTS bad decisions?</p>
<p>How about colleges go the other direction and use all the money for merit aid. The brightest and hardest workers will get the most money. Could use a formula like Texas where the top 5-10% of each high school are guaranteed admission so even the poorer students from under performing school systems have an opportunity. Who knows maybe some of the middle class students will decide to enroll in some of the under performing high schools to increase their chances of being in the top x%. Might help those high schools to have some academic competition.</p>
<p>No matter what the income level of the parents, students can be adversely affected by parents’ lifestyle choice. There’s no way around it.</p>
<p>The problem with all merit is the original problem: Scare college money is wasted on those who truly don’t need it, instead of easing the burden on the middle class.</p>
<p>^^ maybe we should think in terms of “the really academically needy kids should be put into the best educational environment because why waste good education on the really sharp kids who don’t need it - they’ll thrive anywhere.”</p>
Of course there is a "way around it’. Don’t make financial aid decisions based on the circumstances of a student’s parents. Wealthy or poor the student should not be penalized for their parents choices and should be rewarded for their own hard work and choices. That is fair.
How is money being wasted when it is given to the students that worked the hardest, are the brightest and most likely to succeed in college? Will some students of wealthy families receive FA? Sure and they earned it with their hard work. Rewarding success is the American way. </p>
<p>How much need based aid do you think the middle class currently gets…other than federal loans? I don’t think people are concerned that a merit ONLY system will hurt the middle class (ease the burden of the middle class), I think they are primarily concerned with it hurting the poor. </p>
<p>I would MUCH rather see students get what they earned and not pay the price for their parents mistakes/decisions.</p>
<p>No matter what the income level of the parents, students can be adversely affected by parents’ lifestyle choice. There’s no way around it.</p>
<p>Very true…just like kids whose NCP’s won’t pay their fair share, there are intact parents who make decisions that negatively affect their kids and the kids suffer.</p>
<p>“the student should not be penalized for their parents choices”</p>
<p>If we had enough money to go around we could do that. The problem is with monied parents who choose vacations and expensive cars, and then want someone else to pay for college because they spent it all. We have FAFSA/PROFILE/IRS to try to prevent such abuse.</p>
The problem is that you would penalize the child of the above “monied” parents but not penalize the child of parents who refuse to work or are not “monied”. The bottom line truth is that none of these children are responsible for their parents choices. It seems as though you would try to punish the ‘monied’ parents by denying their children aid. How is that any more equitable than denying the children of welfare parent(s) aid because of THEIR parents choices?</p>
<p>“How is that any more equitable than denying the children of welfare parent(s) aid because of THEIR parents choices?”</p>
<p>The difference is just the obvious: The monied parents had the money; there’s nothing the poor parents can do to come up with $50K per year extra; they can’t even borrow it. </p>
<p>When it’s time for college, parents have some responsibility, if they are able. The children of monied but irresponsible parents do suffer; the children of poor and irresponsible parents don’t (in this example). It’s not completely fair.</p>
<p>Applicannot said:
“I realize that $50,000 per year is a lot for someone making $200,000 per year - and sometimes that family just can’t afford it. But there are cheaper options for that family, and that family does need to realize that they are in the top 3% of income earners and as such are very unlikely to qualify for aid of any kind.”</p>
<p>I know many full pay families whose kids are going to our public universities because $50,000 a year is a lot, and $100,000, if you’re sending two, is a whole lot more. And, just so you know, we haven’t all wasted our money and spent it frivolously. I come from a lower middle class background and my husband’s background is middle class. I went through undergrad and grad school with financial aid that included loans. My husband went through med school paying only with loans. We have been paying back those loans for years and years and years, while at the same time saving for our children to go to college, saving for retirement, and helping some other family members financially. I’m not asking anyone to feel sorry for us. We have a wonderful life and I wouldn’t trade it, but none of us here should assume we understand each others’ lives.</p>
<p>Our son realized that he would be better off with “the cheaper option” for undergrad. I posted earlier on this thread that he received a merit scholarship (not even close to full pay), but that was after he had already decided to attend. I’m happy for him and very proud of him.</p>
Clearly designing a system that is far to students is not your primary consideration. What is? It certainly seems as though you are most interested in penalizing/punishing “monied but irresponsible parents” regardless of the effect it may have on the children that have no control over their parents bad spending decisions.</p>
<p>How about the middle class? How much “need” based aid (other than loans) do you think their children are receiving?</p>
<p>Perhaps we can just give ALL the money to the poor. The poorer you are the more you receive.</p>
<p>Over all, those who are “poor” (meaning not having much in assets,near poverty level), have fewer choices for college. Because of the stress of not having enough money for all sorts of things, not just college, and because of other social issues, these families often do not have a home that is supportive of kids pursuing their education. The homes are more likely to be small, more chores are often expected from the kids, the stresses that inadequate money brings can create a very bad atmosphere, and yet, most of these kids are not going to have anywhere near what it takes to get out of that environment and go live at a college. As you go higher up the income ladder, the more likely kids have that option and more kids at correspondingly higher income levels do go away to college and have more options.</p>
<p>What I find causes the bitter jealousy over those who get financial aid, is that very tiny group of kids who are so academically qualified AND are financially challeged that they get a lot of money to go to a select college. I don’t hear any bitterness about the millions of kids who just get PLUS and loans to take community college courses. It’s the handful of kids who get that full ride to Harvard because their family qualifies as needing it. </p>
<p>Such cases are RARE. Very rare. To focus one’s attention on that tiny group is ridiculous. Yes, it is unfair and I think unethical of HPY and company to brag that no one misses out on education there for lack of money when every kid whose parents won’t or can’t pay when the school feels they can pay, is not going to be able to go there. If mom and dad refuse to fill out the forms, kid is out of luck If they have the money but won’t use it for college, such kids are out of luck. There are cases that I have personally known where the finances were so arranged that really the parents could not afford, on a long term basis, to liquidate assets (like rental properties) to pay for college because those assets were generating the income for the family and the equity represent the retirement plan, which is not a qualified plan like the corporate guy would have, so is unprotected. Yes there is unfairness it this system in little pockets like that.</p>
<p>But the fact of the matter is, you can easily go poor. Get rid of your assets, lose your job and take your chances on what financial aid your kid gets and live the life that allows you to enter that financial aid lottery. Not many takers fo that route. Whereas those without the assets do not tend to be able to get them.</p>
<p>I know many middle class families that just can’t prudently make college such a priority that they put that much of their assets into it. And I can feel their pain, believe me. However, when I sit down and try to come up with ways to change the situation, I just can’t see being a reverse Robin Hood in this scenario. If anything, more money should go to those kids who are from families that are poor. And that is what the very top schools have pretty much done. They can afford to do so, because just the way the natural statistics develop, there is a direct relationship in the quality of academic preparednes/ability and family income/finances. It is a constant in educational statistics. So the top schools are going to get the cream of the crop and still have a lot of kids who can afford the cost applying. </p>
<p>It’s the schools that are not as attractive to these well to do, terrific candidates, that have to compete for those students, and they are finding that offering some merit money does have the results. Not only do they get kids who are on the top of stats, their parents can pay for the education so that investing a bit of merit money in them brings high returns. Also if the kid loses the scholarship, the parent can make up the difference. Those top student are what all colleges want, and just as the sports teams “pay” for their athletes, so do some colleges “pay” for the top students. A school has its wish list and to fill many of what is wanted and needed, some money is useful as enticement.</p>
<p>“But the fact of the matter is, you can easily go poor. Get rid of your assets, lose your job and take your chances on what financial aid your kid gets and live the life that allows you to enter that financial aid lottery. Not many takers fo that route.”</p>
<p>This is why I find the VossRon middle-class whine hypocritical. He wants the help that the poor receive, but to keep everything that the poor do not have.</p>
You really don’t know that on the individual level. My neighbor has a very marketable skill that employers are begging for. if he chose to get a job, he would come up with more than $50k on the spot.</p>
<p>
I agree with you. However, this isn’t one of those threads. This is about the hypothetical elimination of merit aid everywhere and the possible consequences.</p>
<p>It’s more equitable in both are given a more fair financial aid package, yes. Both students are judged as being able to pay a certain amount. If one student is able to come up with that amount and the other can’t, the other student either has options or needs to look elsewhere. Financial aid iniatives at these top schools cover 94% of families and cost nothing for over 50% of families. I’d like to expand financial aid for the people between the 50% and the 94% mark, in order to reduce this situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There will still be schools with lower sticker prices. I would like to see merit money exist through a) private organizations and b) very specific donor contributions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Income says they need it, especially since they already receive federal-means tested benefits. No system is going to be perfect. Not to mention it’s highly unlikely a student from that kind of household is going to be eligible for merit money anyways, although it happens (me). Under current and improved FA policies, both families would receive the same financial aid - everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well firstly, in either circumstance, it may not be a matter of DECISION. But yes, there are problems at both ends of the spectrum. No system is going to be perfect. I agree that the wealthier student with foolish parents is problematic, but unless the parents are completely bankrupt, there are options somewhere. The goal of the system isn’t to get every student a $50,000 education, it’s to give every student an opportunity to attend an educationally sound institution (preferably four-year).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t take into account students limited by their socioeconomic status. And would the decision be holistic or numbers based? Holistic would solve the former problem, but it wouldn’t really be a change in the system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. Nothing’s perfect. There are always going to be winners and losers. But, the least we can do is ease the burden of the most people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The goal is to get a better “educational environment” for EVERYONE, the most needy and the least needy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is really problematic for the whole system, as I’ve stated. But college costs have ballooned far beyond what a student can reasonably eearn or be expected to take out in loans. As a result, I doubt that will reverse, and the cost will still be dependent on parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You caught me. I’m primarily concerned with a) not further damaging the poor and b) easing the burden on the bulk of the middle class (i.e., not the people who are making more than95% of all earners in the US).</p>
<p>It’s a good thing I didn’t, then. You may have been very frugal, but it’s just out of reach for you. I understand that. But no one should EXPECT a handout, least of all some of the wealthiest people in the country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is exactly what I’m advocating. Those with the least get the most, and then on up the scale. My goal would be to reduce actual contributions from middle income families in addition to relieving contributions from lower income families.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not much now; ideally more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t speak for vossron, but I’m personally looking to extend opportunities for poor students while also expanding options for middle class students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No system is perfect and, as much as anecdotal evidence hurts, it’ss very rarely the case. Is he an alcoholic? Addiction is extremely difficult to overcome, especially if there are enablers hanging around. My uncle could easily be earning $40,000+ per year, but he is an alcoholic and my grandmother is his enabler. I don’t think his kids should be punished because there’s really no potential there.</p>