<p>Yeah I’m pretty sick and tired of people like Thacker bashing on merit aid. They act as if the ONLY kind of aid that should ever be given out is need based. Whatever happened to balance? Do exceptional students not deserve to get anything for the hard work that put them where they are?</p>
<p>Also, middle class people (such as myself) do not get much need-based aid, if any. Ivies say they want to include everyone, but what ends up happening is that only the rich or the poor can afford to go. The middle class is forgotten. Which is pretty common for current liberal thinking, which most Universities subscribe to.</p>
<p>College money is in such short supply, I don’t want those who simply don’t need it to get it; it helps the rich get even richer, increasing the gap even more. The reward for hard work is admittance to top schools. Just move merit money to aid, and lower the aid thresholds, making college affordable for more of the middle class.</p>
<p>I’ll say it again for your sake, Matt516: Feel empowered to send me your parent’s income, and then you too will be able to afford that Ivy education.</p>
<p>No need to thank me, I’m here for you and your conservative confusion.</p>
<p>^^^^Again, I think it depends on your definition of middle-class. It seems the Ivies and a few others do give at least some aid for those with incomes between $80-150 K/year. I doubt any decisions are based on liberal or conservative principles, but on what is the best financial decision for that university.</p>
<p>*College money is in such short supply, I don’t want those who simply don’t need it to get it; it helps the rich get even richer, increasing the gap even more. The reward for hard work is admittance to top schools. Just move merit money to aid, and lower the aid thresholds, making college affordable for more of the middle class. *</p>
<p>I think you mean raise the the aid thresholds to qualify.</p>
<p>Merit aid does not help the rich get richer. It helps the school overall. Yes, there might be a small number of “rich” kids getting merit, just like there are some rich kids getting athletic scholarships. </p>
<p>For a school to just give FA and no merit, then they often have to go the route of only accepting high stats kids. Do you want that??? </p>
<p>Most schools do not want to give out tons of FA to a bunch of low or moderate stats kids…because those kids don’t make the school look good.</p>
<p>More to the point, the aid policies aren’t too clean either. FAFSA only schools (like the UCs) or CSS schools that don’t ask for NCP info (like USC) will let the child of a wealthy NCP get full aid - LOL - and for a UC kid that’s tax payer money. Merit, is often from donors who’ve designated what the money is to be used for.</p>
<p>“College money is in such short supply, I don’t want those who simply don’t need it to get it”</p>
<p>Right. That is exactly why need-based aid should be withheld from the middle class. </p>
<p>Or we can agree who is deserving that their lifestyles not be affected by college costs: Your middle-class values dictate a new SUV every couple of years, while my more refined values might be keeping a mistress or three. You lead to massive oil spills; I plow my aid back into the local economy.</p>
<p>My high stats kids took the merit scholarships instead of buying prestige. After reading vossron, I now realize that my kids are engaging in public service by enriching the learning experience of the mediocre middle class.</p>
<p>“Explain please how a need-blind admissions policy helps a schools financial well-being.”</p>
<p>Not sure but I’ll make some assumptions (of course we know what is said about those who assume). I imagine it increases applications and allows them to have more selective admission policies and therefore increases ranking and prestige. It also makes alumni donors feel good about donating to the greater good. Schools with huge endowments all seem to be need-blind. In addition, need blind allows you to select the best students of a group, not just the best students of those who can afford the bills. Again, that increases stats of incoming class and therefore rankings and prestige. </p>
<p>I always thing policy decisions of any organization are based on money and makes more sense than some sort of left-wing conspiracy. But I admit I know nothing about how colleges run their business.</p>
<p>Everything colleges do is in their own self interest. Those few private schools that are need-blind and meet full need have enough endowment that they can afford to try to attract students without regard to their ability to pay, but most schools must pay more attention to their financial state in order to support their continued existence and improvement. It’s especially hard when endowments are down, and schools have made financial commitments to students that must be kept; schools must keep enough endowment to benefit from the (hoped-for) financial recovery. It’s a tough balancing act.</p>
<p>“Not sure but I’ll make some assumptions (of course we know what is said about those who assume). I imagine it increases applications and allows them to have more selective admission policies and therefore increases ranking and prestige. It also makes alumni donors feel good about donating to the greater good. Schools with huge endowments all seem to be need-blind. In addition, need blind allows you to select the best students of a group, not just the best students of those who can afford the bills. Again, that increases stats of incoming class and therefore rankings and prestige.”</p>
<p>*but most schools must pay more attention to their financial state in order to support their continued existence and improvement. It’s especially hard when endowments are down, and schools have made financial commitments to students that must be kept; schools must keep enough endowment to benefit from the (hoped-for) financial recovery. It’s a tough balancing act. *</p>
<p>Exactly. and that’s why merit has to continue for those schools. They need to be able to present good stats so that donors are motivated to donate.</p>
<p>Eric, yes, the reasoning does apply of merit based aid, but I believe it also holds true for how need blind and 100% need met policies help the school as well. One prestigious LAC, Davidson, uses all those strategies to keep up with the other top ten better known LACs such as Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore. Davidson offers merit, 100% need met without loans and are need blind. I believe the Ivies and other LACS do some preferential packaging to keep stats high and rankings secure despite no “official” merit aid. So, schools use a combination of 100% of need met, no loans, merit aid, need-blind policies to support their self interest.</p>
<p>If your argument is that colleges operate by their bottom line only, then saying that need-based has <em>some</em> of the advantages of a merit based system is not persuasive. They should be spending each dollar where it brings maximum benefit.</p>
<p>If two students are equally attractive in the eyes of the college before money is considered, a system that took the full-freight kid and refused the need-requiring kid would free up money to ‘buy’ the even more attractive student.</p>
<p>If your argument is that colleges operate by their bottom line only, then saying that need-based has <em>some</em> of the advantages of a merit based system is not persuasive. They should be spending each dollar where it brings maximum benefit.</p>
<p>If two students are equally attractive in the eyes of the college before money is considered, a system that took the full-freight kid and refused the need-requiring kid would free up money to ‘buy’ the even more attractive student.</p>
<p>But if they are not need blind, applications and selectivity go down and therefore a “hit” on the rankings. Rankings and alumni pride may be worth more money than the rare situation in which they have to decide between 2 equally attractive kids from different income groups. Harvard I found out first hand is very concerned about selectivity numbers and spend a lot of money on recruiting. And maybe I am mistaken to believe colleges just operate on bottom line. But, as vos said, “Everything colleges do is in their own self interest.” </p>
<p>Or, you can believe in the left wing conspiracy idea. It doesn’t matter to me. :)</p>
<p>Even if you are correct that apps go down, that hardly matters if the yield from the apps on the tippy top of the pile increase. If need-based aid was not sucking the college dry, they could recruit the world over, rather than just in the US. Do you really doubt that the college would end up with an academically inferior student body ??</p>
<p>Or consider a country in which companies are allowed to choose their workers, but everyone must be paid the same.</p>
<p>“If two students are equally attractive in the eyes of the college before money is considered, a system that took the full-freight kid and refused the need-requiring kid would free up money to ‘buy’ the even more attractive student.”</p>
<p>The problem is that capacity is limited; as a policy this would result in twice as many students as there are seats.</p>
<p>“And maybe I am mistaken to believe colleges just operate on bottom line.”</p>
<p>They’re more interested in keeping themselves attractive in the long run. If they wanted, they could increase the bottom line by accepting only full list payers, but it would eventually lower their attractiveness, e.g., by lowering their academic level and diversity.</p>
<p>*They’re more interested in keeping themselves attractive in the long run. *</p>
<p>Of course they are. </p>
<p>and…with all this mania with parents and students worried about “fit” - schools do whatever it takes to look like they “fit” a lot of different types. And…that often means being able to suggest that they have a good number of high stats kids.</p>