<p>Perhaps a lecture on the meaing of the term “fungible” is in order. In this case it means that the dollars spent for merit aid, or need based aid, or faculty salaries, or admission committee staff salaries, or advertising campaigns to increase apparent selectivity are all indistinguishable from one another. It makes no sense to talk about any of these things being uniquely at the expense of any of the others. This is not an opinion: money is fungible, that’s a fact. There is a joke in government budgeting called the “Washington Monument Play” the idea is that if the National Park Service is told they have to have a cut back they tell Congress it will mean closing down the Washington Monument. Get it! Some very high end colleges and universities attack merit aid because they realize that it is an effective tool that other schools can use to compete with them for good students. They figure that if they can somehow convince everyone that it is at the expense of needy students they can discourage the practice and protect themselves from competition. Unfortunately for them the argument is logically flawed.</p>
<p>Bay</p>
<p>No some are purely merit with no consideration of need. One example the National Merit Scholarship, but plenty of schools give merit aid irrespective of need.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At Caltech about 10% of admitted freshman recieve merit award (renewable for 3 more years) from Freshman Admission Committee and additional 10% of upperclassman recieve Upperclass Merit Award from Undergraduate Scholarships and Honors Committee. “Need” is not a factor in these awards.</p>
<p>Bay, yes, there are quite a few merit scholarships, including biggies like Intel or automatic tuition discounts for NMFs, that don’t account for need. Indeed, that’s the standard working definition of a ‘merit’.</p>
<p>Most still are based on need. Or need within merit. Both the institutional & outside varieties.</p>
<p>I think that the Intel and Siemens awards should be taken away from any kid who comes from a family earning above a certain amount. Wouldn’t that be fair? After all these kids only had time to do the research becuase they did not have to have a part time job during the school year, right?</p>
<p>Lot’s of scholarships are not based on need.
How about every kids who gets into Olin? Should those above a certain income have to pay?</p>
<p>Yeah, old dad! And I also think it is grossly unfair to award music scholarships. What about the tone deaf kids?</p>
<p>A friend’s kid got the big Coke scholarship for doing over 2000 community hours. Since he obviously did not need to have a summer job Coke should take it back. </p>
<p>SS: What did you say? I can’t hear you.</p>
<p>Hi, newbie here. After reading this entire thread I have to ask some of you against the whole merit aid concept…</p>
<p>When you are being considered for a job or job promotion does the employer look at your prior years tax return? Do they look at how much you earned last year? Do they look at (in the case of new colllege grads) look at what your parents earned? </p>
<p>They look at qualifications. So why shouldn’t any college look at a students qualifications, decide how much they want to “pay them” to go to their school, just like an employer. </p>
<p>Anything less is bordering on socialism, the way I see it.</p>
<p>If rich kids can’t win Siemens/Intel awards, then poor kids can’t mention their school-year jobs on college apps.</p>
<p>Nice first post Luvbeach!</p>
<p>Perplex: Good point!</p>
<p>I wanted an athletic scholarship for Bball. I told the colleges: “I may be short but I’m slow”. No takers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting concept. I thought one had to pay to attend college, not be paid to do so. When employed, one performs a service for which one is remunerated. What service does a student perform?</p>
<p>Smart students are more likely to find success in their lives and so reflect well on the college, they’re more likely to donate in the future, and will increase the overall statistics of the college (incoming GPA, SAT scores, class ranking) that may sway other smart students in their decisions.</p>
<p>Recruiting smarter students reflects well on the reputation of any college, so if it costs them a little money do to so, then why not? More applications=lower acceptance rate=more prestige=easier to raise tuition=more money for the college.</p>
<p>If smart students didn’t have any affect on colleges, do you think there would even be merit aid? Colleges are businesses, and they aren’t stupid.</p>
<p>Marite, In an attempt to put some humor in my words, perhaps I have created more of a controversy. Of course schools don’t pay students to attend in the literal sense. But the college tuition figure charged by most schools, as we all know, is a moving target. Whether it is need based or merit based aid, many many students do NOT pay full tuition. My only point is that why should college tuition be any different than an employer’s salary offer? Both an employer and an educational institution can want an individual for various reasons and in a free-market society there should be no problem with this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And we come full circle. There is more than one way to be paid to attend college.</p>
<p>Business Guy, well said.</p>
<p>
Also only scientists from third world countries could receive Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>Luvbeach:</p>
<p>I still don’t get the analogy, sorry.
If you mean that employers pay those they want to hire, perhaps even give them bonuses for signing on; and that colleges offer merit scholarships to students they really want to attract and that the two are similar, fine.</p>
<p>Let colleges act like employers and get rid of need-based aid. Instead, give merit aid to all the students who are admitted. In fact, this particular scenario was advocated not long ago on this very forum.
I don’t have any problem with that on a purely personal level. I’m already paying two full fares anyway, which I would not mind turning into two full rides under the new scheme. Is it good for society as a whole, though?</p>