<p>Merit money increases the yield from the group of students that a college most wants. That is why it is offered. A high stat student from any economic environment is going to have a lot of alternatives. Some school is going to be willing to pay for those stats, whether through preferencial packaging of financial aid, merit within aid, pure merit or all aid. It’s the kids who don’t have such stats who are more limited. THey have to gain acceptance to schools with stats that do not make them standouts, and then they have to get the money to attend if their parents cannot afford college. Those kids with money just have to get accepted.</p>
<p>But even small merit awards can make a difference for those families who may not qualify for aid but are feeling every tuition check. There are a lot of families in that category.</p>
<p>Yes, very well said, but the key is: “those families who may not qualify for aid.” If the school weren’t giving merit aid, it can lower the dollar threshold bar, qualifying those families.</p>
<p>Isn’t higher education intended to prepare our kids for the “real world”? I think that preparation should not be just about books and classes, but about the whole experience including competing for admissions and money. That’s how it is out here in the real world!</p>
<p>Do hiring companies really care about the students’ economic background? Not really. Do they care about performance inside and outside the classroom? Yes, definitely. Do they reward for outstanding performance before and after hiring? Yes.</p>
<p>I think that everyone who wants a job and is willing to work should be able to get one (I also know that it doesn’t work that way). However, I also think that those who work harder and generate more results should be paid more than those that don’t regardless of their current financial standing or that of their family.</p>
<p>^^^
How about this idea? Every high school graduate gets his/her first year of college 100% paid at any college they can get accepted. Obviously the more prestigious colleges can afford to be more discerning in admissions than those not so renown. Because diversity will be important to ALL colleges I’m sure that (similar to now) colleges will look at URM status as part of the whole person concept of admissions. If you can get in…your first year is free. Some (many) may need to go to a community college, but if that is the only place you can get accepted…it is a start.</p>
<p>Now the second, third and fourth year are competitive. Top 10% (or so) free. Next 20% (reduced tuition x amount) ect…</p>
<p>This method would reward those that work the hardest and are most likely to be successful without discriminating against the students from bad socioeconomic backgrounds. All students will be competing within the same school with the same professors at a level (college) that they chose.</p>
<p>I wish that the state schools were the best ones in the country instead of the privates. California, Virginia, Michigan, and North Carolina have it right with flagships that are highly desirable by all students everywhere. That would reduce the cost for everyone if those flagship schools are fully funded.</p>
<p>As for additional money going towards college education, it really should go towards the lower income kids. How to distribute things equitably, efficiently and effectively is the question. As for private schools, they can do as they please, which is what they do now. If they want to discount their tuition for certain kids that they want, that’s their prerogative. I am certainly not under the illusion that all of those merit awards for community service, extra curriculars, etc are truly for merit. It’s to try to attract those students for the economic health of the college. On the other hand, paying for high test scores is something that can improve the ratings of the colleges and by increasing average test scores attract a higher caliber of students. It makes sense for schools to do this. Also schools in danger of becoming overly lopsided in one sex will give extra consideration to the other to keep the ratio to at least 60/40 because experience has shown that when it dips too far below that, it does not attract as many kids. These college folks spend a lot of time studying their classes and what they need to be more competitive and how to get more of a certain type of student.</p>
<p>My son was asked to complete several surveys for schools that he declined with some reward for doing so. All of them asked questions like what level of merit money would have changed his mind to attending there and questions on his other offers and where he was going. Only the schools that offered merit grants had those questionnaires. It’s pretty clear to be that this is an important issue to colleges.</p>
<p>I’m not a big fan of this … but I certainly see why soem woudl like … individual competition let the best student win. To me the disagreement on this topic is essentially one of through which lens you look at the situation.</p>
<p>Assuming a set amount of bucks for aid … merit and need-based … I think there are three results from a subset of schools proving merit aid …</p>
<p>1) Some students (and their families win) as, in gerenal, kids who would have attended college still do and often switch schools and their families save money … and studies show this benefit disproportionately goes to middle class and up kids.</p>
<p>2) Some schools win … schools can use merit aid to entice students who likely woudl have attended other schools without the carrot of merit aid.</p>
<p>3) Some students lose … if the overall pool of aid is constant and Bill Gates’ kid gets a full ride to We<em>Give</em>Merits_U … 1) Bill Gate’s kid might change school and he saves $50k a year … and 2) $50k less is available for financial aid which just made it harder for some solid but not spectacular lower income family. (And as Vosson keeps mentioning withou any merit aid the level of financial aid could improve).</p>
<p>So merit produces a system with some local optimum while lowering the overal system’s optimum … unfortunate in my opinion. Looking at it from a global standpoint rather than increasing merit aid at the expense of financial aid … there are a couple improvements that would provide more leverage to the overall community of college worthy students. First, relook at the FAFSA/Profile process to take care of some of the issues in the system … and two, raise the level of aid provided overall.</p>
<p>I know that this example ^ is hyperbole to make a point, but I’d expect that whatever school accepts Bill Gates’s kids is going to have a development person whose sole brief will be encouraging the Gates family to donate to the school to support other students. If a school could snag one of those kids by awarding a $50k full ride, it would be penny wise, pound foolish not to do so. In reality, it probably doesn’t work like that. The handful of kids who are children of celebrities who are also major developmental dream admits are probably going to be stroked by getting lots of personal calls so the school can show its love rather than the offer of money.</p>
Would you be in favor of completely eliminating merit money everywhere to a system in which some specific individuals with unique circumstances lost out in favor of the entire system being optimized? I like cptofthehouse’s distinction between public and private.</p>
<p>“Would you be in favor of completely eliminating merit money everywhere to a system in which some specific individuals with unique circumstances lost out in favor of the entire system being optimized?”</p>
<p>Yes, exactly, very well said.</p>
<p>It’s like public health; an individual with an infection may have the best chance of survival if first given vancomycin, but more more will survive overall if it is initially withheld from every individual.</p>
Would you feel the same way if the unintended consequence of your action turned out to be less options for poor kids? I guess I just don’t get being such a rigid idealogue that individuals no longer matter when it is possible to protect individual human beings AND do right by society as a whole. To me, it seems that that extreme position is either a coward’s way out or an attempt to impose one’s own values and priorities on everyone else</p>
<p>I guess colleges can collude to eliminate merit aid, but what that would do is hit those colleges giving merit aid very hard since they would then lose more highly desired students to the ivies and other high profile schools or to state schools that are cheaper. The whole purpose of merit aid is to snag some of these kids to keep up the rankings and quality of those schools. I know kids who have gone to Fordham who were accepted to CMU, Holy Cross, BC and even ivies, because they got a nice fat merit award from Fordham. Without merit money, Fordham would be off that kid’s list in favor of more highly selective and rated schools or cheaper schools like the state schools. That’s what the schools would give up. That is what merit money does.</p>
<p>Some states offer merit money to keep their kids in state. The amount is usually approximately the amount of the in state tuition. This has made UGA, GTech, UFl far more competitive since kids can go there tuition free. That too is a merit award. It’s not just private schools that offer them. Other schools want NMS and will pay for them or give full rides or full tuitions or nice premiums for kids at certain SAT and gpa threshholds. </p>
<p>These programs work. Some years ago, Pitt’s Chancellor awards were pretty much automatic at a 1340 SAT and a threshhold gpa. No more. In order to be eligible that SAT has risen to 1400 or so, and that is only to be considered. It has joined the ranks of highly sought merit packages and some high flying kids that would have a shot at any school are seeking this award. And taking it over ivies and other colleges that are more prestigious.</p>
<p>I think that California has a good handle on the way their university system works despite the budget and tax travails they have had. Kids who do not have certain threshhold grades or test scores should be directed to community colleges and after two years of getting certain grades in certain required courses should be given a guaranteed transfer to the flagship school or other state 4 year college depending on the major chosen and performance in those two years. I would like to see th cost of that born by the state and federal governments so that those kids who have demonstrated success in the first years of college are encouraged to continue. Until a certain level of competency is achieved, kids do not get that transfer unless through successfully appealing under special circumstances.</p>
<p>^^Well said, cpt. Merit aid will not go away because some of the very brightest kids in the country follow the money. If the money was not there, they would not even consider the school, so the lesser known, lower ranking schools’ stats would go down. It’s win-win for the brightest kids out there. And as a parent of one, I am happy that I did my homework on which schools offer merit money.</p>
<p>In fact, some of the top schools have some very selective merit awards that regularly lure kids away from the HPY and company. Schools like UChicago, GaTech, UNCChapel Hill, Johns Hopkins, Emory, Duke, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest all have scholarships that are so competitive that getting one is harder than getting into HPY. This is when the money can make the difference in the decision of a top drawer kid whose family may be well to do in that they qualify for little or no financial aid, but where a full ride would be something to consider seriously, especially from schools that are really that that far down the prestige chain.</p>
<p>“Would you feel the same way if the unintended consequence of your action turned out to be less options for poor kids?”</p>
<p>Poor kids already have zero EFC; it’s the middle class that would benefit, by having the income threshold lowered above which they would get aid (or more aid, including for poor kids who were gapped). But if there were an unintended consequence, I’d fix it! :)</p>
The entire system being optimized is just an euphemism for taking merit money from the wealthy and middle class and adding it to the need based pool of money for poor students. The “specific individuals with unique circumstances” that will lose out are the entire middle class and and wealthy students whose parents currently see no need based aid. Another welfare system without even an attempt at rewarding the highest performing and most likely to succeed students, let alone returning a government benefit to the groups (middle class & wealthy) that pay almost all the personal taxes in this country. Why try to change the system? Just petition the government for more of a handout and leave the college FA system as it is.</p>