<p>To be honest, the whole issue of cutting merit aid is more of a concern to me because it shuts out middle class students who may not qualify for financial aid, but who cannot afford to pay the full price for college. I was a semi-finalist for some scholarships and a finalist for others; had I gotten them, I probably would be headed to a different college than I am now (though I got decent FA). Honestly, for me, probably the most stressful part of the entire college process was financial aid and the immense costs of college. Why not cut out athletic scholarships as well?</p>
<p>Merit money should be moved to financial aid, not cut. The result is then more money available to the middle class, not less, because none of it then goes to those in the upper class who truly don’t need it. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Funnel that money into need-based aid and increased need-based aid for the groups not currently receiving enough. At the schools with the most need-based aid - HYP et al - the middle class is being covered. In fact, under plans at HYPS, 94% of all families are given some form of financial aid - usually a significant portion. I encourage merit awards from outside sources AND/OR very specific scholarship programs offered through donors - that’s their perogative. But I don’t want to see merit awards through financial aid packages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. But under the current FAFSA system, the majority of the middle class still doesn’t qualify, and even if the money was moved, the majority of universities still wouldn’t be able to institute the kind of generous program that HYP have.</p>
<p>For those of you in favor of awarding aid based solely on need, what criteria, if any, would you use beyond that? Wouldn’t academic achievement have to come into play, rather than just giving the most money to the neediest regardless of achievement?</p>
<p>Also, if the parents are ultimately responsible for financing a student’s education, would you be uncomfortable at all with rewarding the screw-up parents who have great need because of their own actions or inaction?</p>
<p>"Also, if the parents are ultimately responsible for financing a student’s education, would you be uncomfortable at all with rewarding the screw-up parents who have great need because of their own actions or inaction? "</p>
<p>I would love to see the criteria used to judge this. Very interesting point, zoosermom.</p>
<p>I’m a big fan of paying our own way. We are so grateful to have strong backs and work ethics that we can almost do for our kids. It’s no one’s responsbility but our own. </p>
<p>That said, my next door neighbor is a drunk who will not work (he has a very specialized skill and experience that is in huge, immediate demand). Just won’t do it. We watch him come home with cartons of cigarettes and 12-packs of beer several times a week. meanwhile, his middle-school kid is dressed inappropriately and participates in nothing. Very bright but angry boy. The kid was chosen for a very special program this summer that would normall cost several thousand dollars. Another neighbor is struggling mightily to get a business off the ground (you know, the kind that employs people) and has very limited income but her kid who is a higher achiever couldn’t get admitted to that program because the family has some income. Who is being rewarded there? I have mixed feelings about this. The drunken bum father should have a very large, secure income but chooses not to. So taxpayers are subsidizing him. I know it’s not fair to punish the kids for the parents’ foolishness, but it seems that if the parents are supposed to be the ones responsible, they should be held to that in some fashion. I don’t know how. I’m not that smart.</p>
<p>As you read many of these posts, it sounds as though people who are eligible for aid think that those of use who are not have the money just handed to us, and I am sure that some have. However, most people who make too much money to qualify are working people and they have made good decisions. I don’t begrudge anyone who gets aid. I got aid when I was a kid.</p>
<p>And there are plenty of people who have spent a bunch–or smoked it or drank it or whatever–while the rest of us live frugally and save. But education costs have shot up drastically and only the very tippy top earners can just write the check for college. It is a real dilemma.</p>
<p>Sometimes the difference between having money for college and not is through no fault of the less wealthy family. But sometimes it’s a matter of the family with money just working harder. Income doesn’t necessarily equate to wealth and having a decent job and work ethic isn’t the same as being born with the last name Bush. Or Gore.</p>
<p>Also, if becoming “needy” was so incentivized, who’d pay the bill for everyone?</p>
<p>“We are so grateful to have strong backs and work ethics that we can almost do for our kids.”</p>
<p>As opposed to those lazy working class people (true lower middle class) whose kids need financial assistance.</p>
<p>We’re working class. Hubby is a garbageman and a stock boy. I’m an admin.</p>
<p>You misread completely. I was saying that I am grateful that at this time in our lives we are healthy and able to work. Nothing about anyone else but my husband and I. My BIL passed away just before Christmas and at the end of his life he couldn’t do for his kids. Today I am glad that we can. That’s it. Nothing more.</p>
<p>Sorry I misread Zoos. I think I’m still bothered by a previous thread where some stated that lower class people got a great “deal.” Sounds like I should take a break from CC :)</p>
<p>
Do you think the drunken father in your example agrees with you? I doubt he’ll ever accept responsibility for his circumstances in life and his inability to provide for his children. A common thread among too many of the “less fortunate”.</p>
<p>No, of course not, aglages. He feels completely entitled. I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s not “fair” to say “give only to the poor” without some consideration.</p>
<p>Giving children of poor families money to go to college isn’t really “giving to the poor”. It’s not as though their parents get the money, and they certainly didn’t CHOOSE to be born into a poor household. I agree that the best thing to do is not to give aid only to those who need it, but it’s not because doing that wouldn’t be fair.</p>
<p>“Also, if the parents are ultimately responsible for financing a student’s education, would you be uncomfortable at all with rewarding the screw-up parents who have great need because of their own actions or inaction?”</p>
<p>I think of it the other way, not penalizing the student for having poor parents (as opposed to parents who have money but choose to spend it in other ways).</p>
<p>
I can see your point, too. But my question is: do able-bodied parents have a responsibility to work in order to bear some responsibility for their child’s education? If spending in other ways is a choice, is not working also a choice for which parents should be held accountable? Again, if it is the parents who are thought to be responsible for the financing of the education, why should the workers be penalized for the non-workers?</p>
<p>I’m still wondering, though, if “need” is the criteria, what other criteria, if any, would be used to qualify or enhance that?</p>
<p>“But under the current FAFSA system, the majority of the middle class still doesn’t qualify, and even if the money was moved, the majority of universities still wouldn’t be able to institute the kind of generous program that HYP have.”</p>
<p>These are two separate issues. </p>
<p>Few schools use FAFSA to qualify students; schools use their own criteria, even with PROFILE.</p>
<p>HYP are generous because of huge endowments; few schools have these resources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Accepting the student is a measure of academic achievement, in my eyes. I’m not saying that all of the students are at the same academic level, but I don’t think price should be based on that. That is just me, though. I’d prefer merit and otherwise-based scholarships be released by private sources or from very specific donor funds (which is their perogative).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not at all. The child need not suffer for his or her parent’s misfortune. A huge part of the whole problem is that parents are expected to finance their child’s education. I understand that concept, but it is problematic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope I don’t come across this way. If colleges are going to charge $50.000+ per year, they need to continue providing financial aid for 94% of families. 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>
What would you base the price on?</p>
<p>
I agree with you. It is problematic. It bothers me to say “hardworking people must be responsible, but slackers don’t have to be responsible for their kids’ education.” I still don’t know what the answer is. I’m just making the point that “fair” is complicated.</p>
<p>
In terms of private schools, absent merit aid, there might not be cheaper options. Now, no one is entitled to a private school education, but I wouldn’t think it would be a good thing fiscally for any college to completely price out people who can pay a lot, if not the entire bill.</p>