<p>“Does anyone honestly believe that merit aid money, if “freed up” would translate into financial aid money?”</p>
<p>Why do you think it wouldn’t? All awards are used to attract students. When applicants are weighing offers, they don’t care if it’s called aid or merit; they look at the bottom line. If schools didn’t move merit money to aid, they would net lose many top applicants.</p>
<p>They could easily turn it into preferential packaging. Or, they could use it to beef up faculty perks, or anything else they wanted and simply give less financial aid grants. If every other college is doing that too, and it’s all behind closed doors, what’s to stop them? </p>
<p>Then again, if they wanted to keep those top applicants, they’ll offer it to them, and guess what - it will magically be merit aid again.</p>
<p>It does kind of bug me that merit aid can cut out need based aid, but what if you used merit aid to help those who can BARELY pay full tuition or those who would qualify for need-based aid anyways?</p>
<p>rainbows and unicorns aside, colleges do know (And we should too) that admitting large amounts of qualified (not necesarily SUPER qualified) financial aid students can be expensive. Not all students who qualify for financial aid are similarly qualified. Why not just delegate merit based aid to those in a certain category?</p>
<p>apyyyy says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are several things wrong with this statement.</p>
<p>First, <em>if</em> (and it’s a very, very big IF) a low income student is lucky enough to be a competitive applicant for a “top college” and <em>if</em> (another very big IF) that student is lucky enough to actually be admitted to a “top college” that meets his/her full need with no more than Stafford loans, then that student is just as likely as their upper middle class peer to graduate on time. So the middle class is NOT paying for large numbers of low income students to attend, but not graduate from top schools.</p>
<p>Second, the vast majority of low income students do not attend top colleges; the vast majority of low and lower middle income students attend local community colleges and directional state U’s because that’s what they can afford with the Pell grant and * the maximum amount of Stafford loans*. Note that there’s typically NO institutional grant aid for these students. Often they must also work long hours at off campus jobs just to pay the rest of their bills because their parents are barely eking out a marginal living. You should try working 30+ hours a week at an off campus job while also trying to take 6 three-credit college courses each semester. See how long you can last before something (often it is the academic work) gives out and you find that you have to step out for a while to regroup. So if the top college’s FA/merit aid policies are somehow “shafting” middle class students, it’s not because those colleges are throwing their institutional grant aid at large numbers of low income students who are having trouble graduating at your local community college or directional state U. </p>
<p>Third, outside of Pell grants, which go to only the poorest of the poor, the typical low to low middle income student has the same maximum amount on Stafford loans ($5500 for freshman year) as any upper middle class or even upper class student who takes the time to file a FAFSA—the only difference is that the feds pay the interest on the first $3500 for the poorer student. So in a strict numerical sense, the federal part of student financial aid is already numerically equal for all but the poorest of the poor: The feds will help any student borrow up to $5500 for freshman year in their own name without a cosigner. </p>
<p>Fourth, the Pell grant (max of $5000) is hardly a drop in the bucket compared to the institutional aid (both need based and merit based) that many students (of <em>all</em> income levels) receive from the handful of schools with really great FA/merit aid awards. But again—most students are NOT lucky enough to be admitted to a school with really great FA or really great merit aid. Is a kid with an EFC of $0 and the Pell grant really any better off with a large $20K+ gap at a private school with lousy need based aid than an upper income kid whose parents can afford $20K, but whose EFC is $30K, is at a school that only awards need-based FA?</p>
<p>Now the question of whether a private college wants to spend its institutional money on funding need-based FA or merit based aid or some kind of mixture between the two is one that I think properly belongs to the private college and its big $$ donors. I’ll agree that private colleges should be open and transparent about what they choose to do with their collective “aid” money and that most are not. I’ll agree that many upper middle class families have unaffordable EFCs and that without (substantial) merit aid, the $50K+ colleges are as out of reach to them as they are to the lower income kids, most of whom won’t qualify for as much merit aid and most of whom will be gapped at all but the handful of schools that do promise to meet full need. And note that an upper middle income student whose family makes between $100K and $180K will normally receive need-based financial aid at HYP.</p>
<p>As for large merit awards at state public schools: I’ve got really mixed feelings about these. Yes, for schools like 'Bama, it lets the school attract some much higher quality OOS students who would otherwise not come. And it really helps solve the dilemma of how an upper middle class family can afford to send a really bright kid OOS simply because the kid wants to go somewhere other than In-state U. But this is the flip side of what apyyyy is complaining about: Here, it’s the lower and lower middle class kids who, through their tuition dollars, are paying the way for some rich kids to be bribed to come to campus since many of these merit awards wind up going to middle and upper class students who could easily afford to go to some college somewhere else.</p>
<p>Finally no student—no matter how bright—is automatically entitled to attend a $50K school or an OOS public just because they “don’t want” to go to a more affordable in-state public. But the upper middle income and above kids still have a lot more choice—they can more than likely afford any of their in-state schools without it creating a substantial burden on their parents. They are much more likely to have gone to the kind of high school and had the kind of family environment that leads to high SAT scores and stellar GPAs with high quality ECs that helps them land decent merit money. The lower income kids and their families have to seriously scramble and often go into debt to try to make it work at the in-state public that the upper middle income kid thinks is “below” him.</p>
<p>greenwitch says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s more truth in this statement than many here on CC want to admit. And this hurts the kids with lower EFCs as well as the ones with modest EFCs of $10K to $20K at least as much as it hurts those with EFCs of $30K+</p>
<p>I’m one of those middle-income kids apyyyy says gets shafted with aid: I’m probably taking on twice as many loans as the majority of people here on CC would advise me to do. In all truth and honesty, though, it won’t be a problem for me: If it comes out of my paycheck for ten years, fine: I come from a high-enough income family that I’ll likely make enough to make those payments. Will they hurt? Probably, but I won’t go bankrupt over them. Furthermore, if I ever lose my job, I have a strong enough support from my relatively well off (though not as well off as those who don’t receive ANY need-based aid) family that if need be, they can pay the loans for half a year, a year, and I can pay them back when I get my footing.</p>
<p>So, what if my family doesn’t support me, but does make that much money? then I wouldn’t be able to attend my current school, but I’d be happy attending my local state university, because I would have gotten plenty of merit aid. And even without that aid, it’s a very rare parent who won’t try to help out ANY towards college, and my parents would have made sure I could afford at least the cheapest option.</p>
<p>But the cost of attending my state university is currently 20k/year. Assume max federal aid: $9500 is covered. That leaves 10.5k the average (those who don’t get institutional aid are average) student needs to come up with on their own. How many students do you know attending college full time and earn 10.5k a year? Nevermind the fact that this student will STILL come out 22k in debt. And if they, for some reason, lose their job and can’t come up with the money, what happens then?</p>
<p>This is why need-based aid ought to be prioritized: because middle-income families are pinched at the top schools, and sometimes even at state schools, to make things work. But usually (not always, but in most cases) there is a large enough safety net around that student that they can make it work. But low-income students can be cut-off altogether, no matter how much they desire and work towards attaining their college degree. And loans are many times harsher on students who might not be able to afford to graduate than on students who have some financial support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My answers</p>
<ol>
<li><p>This group is attempting to want to redistribute financial aid so I presume that the goal is to get more kids into college.</p></li>
<li><p>Kid has 1200 out of 2400. </p></li>
<li><p>The impression that I was left with when reading this thread is that the more affluent had an advantage over the poor because they could pay for SAT prep classes. My point is that the prep class advantage is only a small part of the explanation as to why more affluent schools “outperform” the poorer schools.</p></li>
<li><p>Wherever the money goes, that is what is incentivized. Many CCers have written about how they saved for their kids to go to college. My guess if that people will save less (if at all) if having less then you will get more.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Guys like Thacker were willing participants, even designers, of a system ripe for gaming. At first, the system was easily gamed by the institutions of higher learning. It allowed those institutions to select their preferred applicants under the guise of objectivity. Now, the great unwashed have figured out how to beat that system and the educational elite are stuck with results that they don’t like.</p>
<p>The cold truth is that the elitist educational cabal wants two classes of students in their ivory towers: their own kind and the beneficiaries of their largess, the latter being grateful for the opportunity while still knowing their place. This is a significant reason to reduce merit aid because the first group needs nothing, other than a pedigree, to attend, and the second group fits the (illegal, IMHO, anti-trust violating in the case of the Ivies) profile for pure need based aid, so merit aid has no impact on their ability to attend. Who gets squeezed in this equation? The public school attending, middle class, suburban students who work their tails off, achieve highly, and genuinely can’t afford to pay the outrageously high costs of elite schools.</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with the college admissions process that couldn’t be cured by good old-fashioned competition. Real competition. The kind that guys like Thacker deplore:</p>
<ul>
<li>Trash the common application;</li>
<li>Forget about common deadlines and standardized decision dates - if Harvard wants Johnnie on September 1, Harvard should admit him on September 1;</li>
<li>Give students real deadlines. If Harvard admits Johnnie on September 1, tell Johnnie that he can decide by October 1 and he can put down a deposit then;</li>
<li>Compete for students. If a school wants a diverse student body, make the school go out and get it. Make the school compete for all the diversity (racial, ethnic, interests, etc.) it requires;</li>
<li>Reduce or eliminate government involvement in the financial aid business. Excessive financial aid has done more to drive college costs to these absurd levels far more than any other factor;</li>
<li>Tell every college that they can run their own student loan programs out of their endowments. They can defer interest or not - their option. They can set the rates. If they’re delivering a good product, their endowments will grow. If they fail and their graduates default on the loans, they can find money elsewhere.</li>
</ul>
<p>And before anyone chimes in claiming that the elite will only get more elite, consider this: This kind of competition is the model for the sporting world, the world that produces different champions year in and year out, the world where underdogs rise to the top, where records fall and higher levels of achievement occur year after year.</p>
<p>What we ought to be doing with colleges is make them sell their product in a free market with free market competition. This guy advocates the opposite - a covenant between providers that guarantees that they will not have to compete for consumers, consumers who will be equally divided among the providers and who will pay different prices determined by the government or NGO. </p>
<p>If you walked into a car dealership and said, “I want the red one,” and they replied, “Sure, tell me how much you have in the bank, how much you make, how much your children make, and how much they have in the bank, then I’ll tell you what the car costs,” 99% of you would walk out and call the cops. Yet nobody thinks twice about that pricing model when it comes to college.</p>
<p>It’s probably a good idea in this thread to post some links to studies of the economics of college attendance in the United States: </p>
<p>[BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?) </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf[/url]”>Error; </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf[/url]”>Error; </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf[/url]”>http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf</a> </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf[/url]”>http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf</a> </p>
<p>[A</a> Thumb on the Scale | Harvard Magazine May-Jun 2005](<a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/05/a-thumb-on-the-scale.html]A”>http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/05/a-thumb-on-the-scale.html) </p>
<p>[The</a> Best Class Money Can Buy - Magazine - The Atlantic](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/financial-aid-leveraging/4]The”>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/financial-aid-leveraging/4) </p>
<p>[Recruiting</a> a New Elite | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510012]Recruiting”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510012) </p>
<p>[Cost</a> Remains a Key Obstacle to College Access](<a href=“http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1240]Cost”>http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1240) </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf[/url]”>http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf</a> </p>
<p>[Legacies</a> of Injustice - Reason Magazine](<a href=“http://www.reason.com/news/show/123910.html]Legacies”>Legacies of Injustice) </p>
<p>To date, at most colleges, it appears to be better for a student to be a low-achieving member of a well off family than to be a high-achieving member of a low-income family. Anything colleges do (whether it’s called “merit aid” or “need-based aid” or whatever) that targets support to high-achieving students from low-income backgrounds sounds like a good idea to me.</p>
<p>“This group is attempting to want to redistribute financial aid so I presume that the goal is to get more kids into college.”</p>
<p>I presumed (okay, naively) that the goal was more equitable distribution of limited funds, to keep the truly well-to-do from getting money they don’t need, at the expense of the middle class.</p>
<p>I think that the move is more towards shifting financial aid money into merit categories. I remember when Oberlin put up the nose to the idea of “buying” top drawer students. Money should only go to those who need it was their stance. Now they’re with those who offer merit money to the kids they most want. </p>
<p>There is a more insidious shift within financial aid as well. The aid is not necessarily going to those students who are the neediest. Instead, many colleges distribute the money to get the most students for the allocated funds. Better to get 10 students by dangling a $5K award to each of them even if they don’t demonstrate need or haven’t even applied for it , then giving the entire $50K to some one who needs full cost met. That is the purpose of a number of merit awards… Also paying for high SAT scores helps those college ratings. </p>
<p>Unless a student with high financial need is in the very top tier of a college admission pool, there is really no contest among the schools as to who gets him. There are very few need blind schools that guarantee 100% of need to be met. And some of those have some stringent definitions of need, and/or load up those aid packages with loans.</p>
<p>So we are talking about a very small group of colleges here that can afford to bid for students. Plus there are a number of them that have the advantage of brand name, and why should the level the playing field in admissions when they already have the lead? The consortium of schools that have tried to take a step in doing this by using the same financial aid methodology still end up competing for students and their aid packages still can vary widely. And they are more likely to match their peer college’s offers. Tell Haverford that Swarthmore is offering $10K more iin financial aid, and they’ll reexamine that package. Gettysburg and Dickinson scramble for the same pool of kids. And they all love kids who are turning down ivy to go to their school; that’s worth another $5-10K.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>And most of us are over a barrel, since we don’t find out how much is due the college until roughly 1 month before the students need to submit a deposit. It is high pressure sales tactics at its worst.</p>
<p>Sticker price doesn’t have anything to do with reality in this college admissions/financial aid world.</p>
<p>The HEO Act of 2008 included provisions for making the cost of college easier to determine at an earlier date (preferably prior to applications), including a change to the federal College Navigator that will give a breakdown of college aid packages by income level and a requirement that colleges include aid calculators on their websites. I believe this will go into effect within the next year or so.</p>
<p>It can’t happen fast enough. 
</p>
<p>We’ll see if it works as well as suggested. Hope so!</p>
<p>Personally, I like the idea of scrapping ‘need-based’ aid entirely, and <em>only</em> having merit based. There is certainly room for discussion what should constitute merit, and the US problem of unequal pre-college opportunity should not be ignored, but I object in principle to the idea of promoting students because they are poor or from the middle-class.</p>
<p>Just how much benefit is society gaining by subsidizing the middle-class to attend a party school for four years and leave with a ‘business’ degree ? Not nearly enough to justify the cost — but that is my opinion only.</p>
<p>
Why ?</p>
<p>Remember, “ensure” is just PC speech for subsidize. Most countries subsidize the top 1% or so; the US is unusual in trying to subsidize everybody with an inflated HS gpa of 2.0 or above.</p>
<p>“I object in principle to the idea of promoting students because they are poor or from the middle-class.”</p>
<p>Contrarily, I object in principle to the idea of educating only the well-to-do.</p>
<p>^^ As do I</p>
<p>It seems horrible to say that there should be no merit-based aid. Beyond the political arguments, merit-based aid is a reward for students’ hard work and an incentive. It’s really important now that college costs so much. As a middle-class recipient of merit-based aid, I have to say it made a huge difference.</p>
<p>Also, I found it strange that private colleges, especially some high-ranked schools that gave me offers, pretend to not be a business. Their admissions/fin aid process is just like any business. Except better. Since they know everything about you and you can’t re-sell your college “seat”, they can practice near-perfect price discrimination. They also practice the worst of sales tactics: I was flooded with booklets full of testimonials, pictures of attractive students, and talk about the “great experience” at that school. There was no mention of real statistics to back the schools reputation. At the same time they cloak themselves in “affordability” and act like if you think its too expensive, then you (or your parents) are being stingy and mortgaging your future. I believe they really are trying to make as much as possible off students willing to make inordinate sacrifices for an illusory sense of “excellence”.</p>
<p>From the NY Times article today about student debt (featured on another thread):</p>
<p>“Then there’s a branding problem. Urging students to attend a cheaper college or leave altogether suggests a lack of confidence about the earning potential of alumni. Nobody wants to admit that. And once a university starts encouraging middle-class students to go elsewhere, it must fill its classes with more children of the wealthy and a much smaller number of low-income students to whom it can afford to offer enormous scholarships. That’s hardly an ideal outcome either.”</p>
<p>It’s definitely a business, and it’s handled very differently by different schools. I have twins, who applied to a total of 21 schools this year. ONE sent a form in the acceptance package with a chart showing how much you have to repay each month in the future for student loans of different amounts.</p>