<p>“I don’t know of any law, government program, policy or any other rule written by man that does not have unintended consequences, but what the school is TRYING to do is to improve the academic quality of its student body.”</p>
<p>Perhaps. But I think it more likely that they are trying to impress wealthy white supporters, or, as others said, attract candidates from the class of wealthy and powerful, who will become wealthy and powerful themselves, and give back to the university. </p>
<p>Now, mind you, this is “for the sake of argument”. I am sure the way honors college student bodies vary quite widely from uni to uni. UVA, without an honors college, has already done a pretty good job of shutting out Pell Grant (low-income) recipients, rather unlike UC-Berkeley. Things really do vary. </p>
<p>Oh - and to be clear - for students who would otherwise be paying $190k for Prestige Private U. (again, remember who has that kind of money), the in-state honors college plus spending the savings on other educational opportunities is virtually always the better deal.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in my state, the U is working hard to attract full-pay OOS students even while reneging on its promise to admit (low-income) community college transfers (many of whom can’t afford it in any case).</p>
<p>I don’t see what the fuss is about. Everyone gets charged the same tuition… top performing students just often pay less because they get offered more scholarships from the school. Those scholarships are rarely funded by the tuition dollars of other students, rather their supported by private funds and endowments controlled by the university. Is it far to reward top students for their performance? Absolutely. This is not a socialist country. </p>
<p>The only thing preventing those not getting the scholarships from getting scholarships is their academic performance… if they boost that they’ll likely get scholarships in the future (sometimes departments have money from corporations and private donors that they give out at the end of each year based on their student’s academic performance). </p>
<p>There’s a place where lesser performing students can take college class with cheap tuition… it’s called community college.</p>
<p>The other benefit that derives to the state from honors programs is that it keeps more students in the state. Mitt Romney was quite up front about that when he espoused the “full tuition” plan for students in MA who were in the top 25% of their class and had certain scores on the statewide MCAS test (necessary for high school graduation). (The reason I put “full tuition” in quotes is because the amount of tuition for UMass is quite small; most of the cost is in fees. But I digress; there are other threads on that topic.)</p>
<p>It’s pretty well-known, and no, I don’t have the statistics, that many kids stay and get jobs near the area in which they go to school. So many states, particularly those in the Northeast and the Rust Belt, are trying to stop the “brain drain.”</p>
<p>Bullhinky,Mini, about the honors colleges using SAT scores to get more full pay, white candidates. They are using the SAT scores to get kids with higher SAT scores to raise the averages for their school. No ulterior motive there. That there is a correlation between the scores and URM/socio economic is not an issue important enough for the schools to address, since things have become so score intensive in school ratings.</p>
<p>“They are using the SAT scores to get kids with higher SAT scores to raise the averages for their school. No ulterior motive there.”</p>
<p>But if they are not getting better students as a result (since we already know the link between SATs and family income and race), what’s the point? (Others have already said what the point is, so I don’t need to repeat it.) I think, relatively to other things, the legitimate state interest in doing so is neglible.</p>
<p>(But remember: I said “for the sake of argument”. I don’t know exactly how states are choosing students for the honors colleges, and am sure it varies state by state.) </p>
<p>It’s not a matter of getting graduates to stay close to home, since they in theory could be enrolling ANYONE in the honors college. It IS a matter of getting wealthier, white kids to do so, again, for reasons other posters have made so well. </p>
<p>“There’s a place where lesser performing students can take college class with cheap tuition… it’s called community college”</p>
<p>That’s uncalled for - since it is already established that these so-called “less performing (read: poorer, and less pinky-grey) students” are enrolled in the same colleges as the so-called “high achievers”. The question was about “honors colleges”, not enrollment.</p>
<p>“But if they are not getting better students as a result (since we already know the link between SATs and family income and race), what’s the point? (Others have already said what the point is, so I don’t need to repeat it.) I think, relatively to other things, the legitimate state interest in doing so is neglible.”</p>
<p>I had a look at the Commonwealth College program at UMass and it has academic and community service requirements. I was impressed by the benefits of the program including scholarship money and research opportunities. The academic requirements are SAT, GPA and class rank. But students with high GPAs at UMass can get into the program outside of SAT scores, highschool GPAs and class rank.</p>
<p>“It’s not a matter of getting graduates to stay close to home, since they in theory could be enrolling ANYONE in the honors college. It IS a matter of getting wealthier, white kids to do so, again, for reasons other posters have made so well.”</p>
<p>It is in MA. Massachusetts is a crazy-expensive place to live but a lot of students that go to colleges and universities in MA stay here after graduation. The state is experiencing an exodus of families and retirees to states with lower costs of living and having the population replenished by graduates is helpful to the tax base.</p>
<p>“That’s uncalled for - since it is already established that these so-called “less performing (read: poorer, and less pinky-grey) students” are enrolled in the same colleges as the so-called “high achievers”. The question was about “honors colleges”, not enrollment.”</p>
<p>The quality of community colleges varies widely. As do even classes within community colleges.</p>
<p>Not sure why you’re using racist language in your posts; it seems to detract from the point you’re trying to make.</p>
<p>“If we use cruise ship as an example, those who pay more get bigger rooms. Why should a student pay extra for less educational services?”</p>
<p>You know, a cruise ship is a <em>great</em> example, but not for the reason you list. It’s a good example BECAUSE the rate you pay may have absolutely NO relationship to the size of the room you get. As cruise specialists in the travel industry can tell you, how much you pay depends on things like how early (or late) you book, how much cruise business your travel agent does (if you book through an agent), what time of year the cruise is, your ability to take advantage of promos, even being a “legacy” – a prior traveler on that cruise line. One of the best deals for cruises is often the “run of ship” rate, which gets you a stateroom, but <em>what</em> level of stateroom you don’t know until you check in. It’s like the “best available”, another rate that will get you the best available cabin they have at time of booking. </p>
<p>Buying cruise tickets is a lot like buying an education in that very few people pay “sticker price”. Instead, individuals find discounts through the cruise line (college) or via travel agents and discounters (outside scholarships and financial aid). Going to an honors college is a lot like being offered a cabin upgrade in exchange for early booking on a cruise – a benefit being offered to get people to hurry up and sign the contract. :-)</p>
<p>Just skimmed the posts. Not all of the best state schools segregate the honors students- UW-Madison, for example. Same dorms, no early registration. As a long ago honors student I see no need to have special dorms, honors courses meant more rigor, not special privileges or segregation. Should students pay more to take calculus based nonhonors physics than the easiest physics course? Along the same lines any student taking 12-18 credits is fulltime and pays the same tuition (they now have to pay more for >18 credits), one does not pay per credit unless below 12 credits. Honors programs at state U’s, no matter how they are structured, help top students get a more rigorous curriculum than the level of the general student. With a mission to educate students of the state the top public U can’t be as exclusive as a private school can be, but they can do their best to offer an appropriate education to the best of their students. Even with access to the honors program/courses not all students want to do the extra work, this does not mean the courses should not be available to those wanting them. Do not make assumptions about all honors programs based on the one(s) you know about.</p>
<p>The heart of this thread is based on very faulty logic. You need to distinguish between honors colleges and merit aid. Consider them separately. Assuming there’s no FA involved, all costs are the same, correct? So there, that satisfies the people who are angry with the bad students subsidizing the good students. </p>
<p>I’m not convinced by arguments that affluent people do better on standardized tests just because they’re rich and can take courses. I’d say it’s a mix between that and the fact that children of successful parents are more likely inherit positive traits than those born to poor parents.</p>
<p>Regardless, that’s semantical because the argument isn’t about whether or not the colleges determine “merit” correctly. In this instance, just assume that the method they use to evaluate worth is 100% sound. The issue is whether or not stellar students should be rewarded with merit scholarships and a place in the honors college. Are you really arguing against this?</p>
<p>This kind of thread drives me crazy. More of the “let’s dumb everything down so we don’t make anyone feel bad” mentality that grips this country.</p>
<p>If a student works hard, takes advanced level classes, and achieves in HS then why not reward them with Honors perks? Those that did not achieve don’t get the perks. That is the real world. Life is hard - get a helmet.</p>
<p>If a student or parent does not like this then why not work harder?</p>
<p>This is like the policy at our HS to not weight grades. The students that take AP & Honors courses are actually penalized in class rank. Great message to send kids. This year’s Val never took an advanced course. When asked about this the administration said the policy not weight grades was so that the lower achieving students “don’t feel bad”.</p>
<p>IM - Like your high school, most colleges don’t weight honors courses when calculating GPA. Harder courses, more work, harder to get at A. Last semester, one of my son’s teacher in an honors class announced his 2 credit honors course would be more like 6 credits of work. Could be why there not as popular as they might be. There’s a min number of courses required for honors students. But they’re open to non-honors students as well. From what we’ve seen though, they’re not very popular with the non-honors students.
From my perspective, the non-honors students are given many opportunities to either enter the program (do well and you can apply at end of sophomore year) or participate informally in the program (take honors classes, live in honors dorms). So, I’m not sure what the big deal is here.
And all this talk about SATs. I know it’s based on research that shows that kids from higher income families do better. But really, doing better on these tests is not outside of the reach of many low income kids. I was raised in a very low income family and did just fine. My three brothers had almost perfect scores. We both bought cheap prep books and studied a bit. And, no my parents didn’t encourage it either (both not even high school grads). It’s a bigger hurdle for these kids…no doubt…but it’s not impossible to do well.</p>
<p>My d and s both attend a state school on full merit scholarships. Without the scholarships, d would have gone to ND; she also had other scholarship options. S had two other large merit scholarships and ND as choices.</p>
<p>D and s are required to live on campus for four years and in return housing is guaranteed. Classes - I don’t think that any preference is shown to honors students.</p>
<p>D and s have a certain gpa required to maintain scholarship and are also required to turn in a summary each semester of organizations and activities in which they are involved both on campus and off. Campus and community involvement are components of the scholarship. Looking closely at the campus organizations, many of the students involved are the scholarship kids (campus radio, newspaper, mock trial, model un, … ). Certainly other students are involved also, but it seems the core group consists of the honors students. Without the merit aid, many of the students would have part time jobs on or off campus; the scholarship money removes that need so the student can in turn give back to the university in time and energy.</p>
<p>Truman Scholars, Fulbright Scholars, Goldwater Scholars have all been the honor students. Same students who manage the gpa, ecs, and leadership in hs continue to do so in college - no wonder state universities want to keep them close.</p>
<p>I just want to say that at our school there are a lot of really rich not stellar students that go to state school not on honors…however, some will go on Atheletic scholarships (why doesn’t anyone ever have a problem with that?). In additon many schools account for students who were not able to have access to all that the “rich” people have and they call it FA- so those kids will get their entire education either free or at a discount…is that not a real blessing? We will pay for our boys schooling we hope they can get some merit aid someplace. But you should be thankful that at least some people who have saved, lived on a budget and worked 80 hours a week for 25 years can help subsidize the non-paying students both in tuition and in the taxes we pay (as we do pay more than our share of taxes, I assure you!) And my husband grew up in a single parent household where his mother never worked (or drove) in otherwards he was one of the very poor who managed to work himself out of his humble beginnings and any thoughts he may have ever had regarding what others “had”, only inspired him to work harder so that he could provide that to his children. I say to the OP, teach your kids to focus on what they have to work with, do their best, work as hard as they can, set goals and quit worrying about what “everyone” else “gets” that they don’t. They’ll find themselves much more successful if they do.</p>
<p>Happiness isn’t getting what you want, it’s wanting what you have!
-unknown</p>
<p>Back in the day, there were no Honors colleges. If you were admitted, you got the same diploma as anyone else, and had as much chance as the next person to graduate summa, magna or cum laude. But that was when everyone wasn’t expected to go to college. Then, our focus shifted to “everyone should go to college.” So now we have kids who would never have gone to college, going to college. Something had to happen to make college accessible to everyone - the advanced and the less advanced. Hence Honors Colleges. No school wants only regulars, or their reputation will go down. They want to maintain the higher standard. In order to attract those students and maintain their reputation, they are giving incentives to keep them there, because they know those students have many other options. They need them for the research and for what they believe these students will accomplish and return to the school in the future. What little they are given is believed to be returned exponentially in years to come.</p>
<p>OK…Call me dense. I’m not sure what the point of your question is DadII. What exactly has you troubled by the fact that honors college students with merit awards and other perks pay less than students who don’t have these same perks? I’m not sure I really understand why you started this thread. Are you implying that the more you pay “out of pocket” the more advantages the school should afford you? That is what I read into your OP. The cost for every student is the same. The difference is that those honors college kids have EARNED a portion of their tuition/fees/costs through the attainment of high stats. And you object to this? Why?</p>
<p>In our state the “merit scholarships” are not paid for by taxpayers, they are paid for by private “Foundations” - generally, groups of alumni who understand the value of attracting “better” quality students to their alma mater. The scholarship applications are “holistic” and are more comprehensive and involved than the supplements for the most elite colleges - including as many as eight essays, letters from both academic and extracurricular mentors, several interview sessions and a “scholarship weekend” of observation and more interviews with faculty, etc.</p>
<p>That said, I would much rather be taxed to fund higher prices for small classes, quiet dorms, etc. for “honors students” than than to fund the average tuition for the average “partier” who attends such colleges. And, I detest funding “remedial classes” for those students who didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to learn the material the first time it was provided in K-12.</p>
<p>My kids go to a private school. We do not give much to the school (there is not much left after paying for the tuitions), so in some way we are paying less than other people. Their school is very selective and many people have wondered why our kids were admitted when there were other wealthier families that would have loved to have our spots. My answer is that students like my kids legitimize the school. They are the ones that get good grades, get their names in the newspapers, and get into good colleges. Without those top students, the school wouldn’t have the reputation to attract those wealthy donors.</p>
<p>Not saying that they are necessarily getting better students. Though I think they are since honor colleges tend to have better students than the rest of the rank and file. What I was saying is that they want higher SATs. Whether that is a direct route to better students is one issue. That higher SATs brings up the rankings of the schools is a definite.</p>
<p>“I detest funding “remedial classes” for those students who didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to learn the material the first time it was provided in K-12.”</p>
<p>That’s one possible reason (blame the kids), here’s another: Blame the schools. My sister (a public elementary school teacher) is not permitted to fail a student. So if Johnny can’t handle third grade, instead of being given an opportunity repeat it to catch up, he’s forced into fourth grade which he can’t handle either, etc., etc…</p>