<p>hmm … lots of interesting topics. What we each see as similar or slightly different situations will vary but I’ll take a crack at answering a bunch of the items raised.</p>
<p>The consistency questions. Yes, I am not a fan of any of merit aid, or athletic scholarships, or “closed” honors programs (or music scholarships or dance scholarships or etc). In short any monetary aid should be focussed on need-based aid. When I say this I am speaking to aid provided by the educational institution itself and the budgetory decisions it is making. I really don’t have any issue with any outside organization that gives merit scholarships that can be used at schools (my issue is with the school’s choices itself not the concept of merit aid)</p>
<p>
To be honest … I am at a total loss why you believe this. You’re making the claim, why don’t you prove it … take any list of 20 schools that provide merit aid … highest rank … most bucks per kid … highest percentage of kids get merit aid … most kids get merit aid … and the majority of them will be schools that do not provide 100% of defined financial need for kids who are eligible for financial aid. Why am I not going to prove it … because I know very-very few schools do fund financial aid to 100% of need … and those schools that do overwhelmingly do not provide merit aid. The fact that EFCs are so harsh only expasperates this situation. To me the burden of proof is on the defenders of institutionally provided merit aid to show that these schools take care of financial aid needs first and that merit is truly extra funds on top of a fully funded financial aid program (good luck!).</p>
<p>As I mentioned before I have 2 issues with merit scholarships … one, money not used in need-based aid (addressed above) … and two, creating classes of students within the school. The “class” concern is why I’m not a big fan of honors programs especially if they have separate dorms, special registrations, etc … to me this is creating classes among the students. I do not see AP courses in the same light, in general, each class is made available to each student and all the kids in the HS can decide if they want to take advantage of an AP or not. They are not creating a class of AP students who have their own wing, their own classes which other kids can not take, get to register first etc. Getting closer to the line would be AP classes requiring a test to get in … that is closer however to me that feels more like a prereq than creating classes of kids within a school.</p>
<p>A lot of this is dependent on where I am drawing the line of where should a set of kids be treated with equal opportunity. To me the question about what about admissions to a particular school while an excellent debating question is a bit of a red herring … short of advocating open admissions to any college program there needs to a point where a judgement is made of where to include or exclude people. To me the line sits pretty much when you are admitted you are an equal citien of the school (and with my definition of what equal means). That line may vary for different people and the definition of equal will differ also … those differences are what make these discussions fun and interesting. And, of course, my opinion doesn’t matter a hill of beans (and shouldn’t) to any school or any other family or even my kids (although a couple seem to have adopted my socialist tendencies)</p>
<p>What you say is very true. In general, colleges work on the belief that no family would want to pay for college if there was a way to do so-- such as the student being declared independent. It sometimes results in heartbreaking scenarios. I recall a CC poster whose D had been admitted to BC; but there was a deadbeat dad who refused to contribute to his D’s education. BC took the line that it disapproved of deadbeat dads and that he should be made to cough up (how?). The girl ended up not being able to attend.</p>
<p>3togo: Good points. Don’t Rcie and Caltech and Chicago meet 100% of need and still give meirt based money? As far as classes of students, aren’t the honors programs set up to allow schools to compete with the “elite” schools which one could argue are themselves a class system within the educational community? The honors programs are like haing a school within a school. If one were to wrap a state college around Harvard, literally would you not effectivley have the same class sytem? Smaller clases better teachers etc at Harvard? Maybe not. Anyway I think your argument is both understandable and reasonable.</p>
<p>^^^ absolutely … and for me have the school within the school feels wrong … while having schools withing a system with differing admission standards (W&M in VA for example) seems OK … for me, somehow having classes of students on a particular campus feels wrong.</p>
<p>And to each their own … and thankfully we have so many different schools from which kids can pick … so they can pick one that fits their imagine of how a school should work … and that our current process allows the students and schools to try to find that match. (that was a not so subtle argument against calls for numbers driven admissions).</p>
<p>I absolutely do not understand the logic…why is it OK to get into a selective college where the student/teacher ratio, dorms, and registration process are all excellent, but not to get into a selective honors program where the student/teacher ratio, dorms, and registration process are all excellent?</p>
Marite, this happens a lot. Even if a parent agrees in a divorce decree to fund a share of college these provisions are rarely specific enough or well drafted enough (secured by an asset) or applied against people with enough non-exempt assets to be enforceable. Child supprt ends at 18 or graduation from high school whichever is later, and with it the court’s ability to enforce with contempt (at least in Texas). After that there is rarely an effective means to force the issue , even with a written agreement to do so. So you get a money judgment . Big deal. Get in line with Visa and Mastercard and all the other unsecured creditors. The majority of Americans are judgment proof (have no non-exempt assets to seize to pay the judgment if you were to get one). There is no obligation legally for parents to contribute one dime to their children after reaching majority. </p>
<p>Of course, they have no obligation to pay for us in our dotage either. ;)</p>
<p>To those of you still hanging on to the notion that merit aid displaces need based aid,</p>
<p>What makes you think that a school that meets less than 100% of need would allocate the funds from cutting back merit aid to increase need-based aid. They could use it to increase faculty salaries or add it to the endowment or spend it on landscaping. Do you object to a school that does meet 100% of need granting merit aid?</p>
<p>doubleplay: Didn’t you read this part: " . . . there needs to be a point where a judgement is made of where to include and exclude people . . ."<br>
3togo is up for “equal opportunity,” but only up to a certain point; after that, a “judgement” has to be made. I don’t know. I think maybe this isn’t so much “socialism” as it is rationalization or hypocrisy . . . or something. I’m confused. ;)</p>
<p>3togo: My point with AP classes is that some schools simply don’t have them, or enough of them to be able to offer their students. Some schools do, but their school isn’t wealthy enough to pay for all the exams for the students; this limits access to the actual exams for some kids who can’t afford the cost of them. And while there may not be defined formal pre-reqs for AP courses, those kids who didn’t get the necessary grounding to be able to take AP Physics or Calculus, for instance, would not be able to take those courses. They really are self-selective. I mean, the arguments could go on and on, really.</p>
<p>Again, there may be lots of schools out there that make institutional merit scholarships–taking that money from their financial aid budgets; if so, I agree that’s wrong. I would be interested in viewing a list of those schools that do that, though. (Have I said that before??)</p>
<p>Interesting thing about the honors perks- at my sons university, the honors dorm is much more expensive than the regular dorms, so we’re paying for the cadillac. From what I read on the CC threads, many students do NOT want to live there, because they think it isn’t going to be “fun” enough. Secondly, honors classes are open to all students (obviously subject to availability). I’m not sure how many regulars sign up for them. Son says in his opinion the honors classes are harder but better because of the smallness and quality of teaching.
My point is, at his school it isn’t as though resources are being taken from some and given to others; they have merely set up an environment for those who want the extra challenge and small college feel within a large university.</p>
<p>By the same reasoning, a college could cut back 100% on all forms of aid and allocate the monies to prof’s salaries or landscaping. But they don’t.
Most colleges have general scholarship funds, created partly out of endowment income and partly out of donations from alums. When I make my contributions, I specify that I want them to go toward scholarships. I expect that my alma mater and grad school respect my wishes and those of other alumni.
There are some scholarships that are restricted, however. For example, Harvard has some that are targeted at Native Americans. There are some for descendents of so-and-so; or students from certain districts. In many cases, there are fewer applicants than could be covered by the terms of these scholarships;the Native American scholarships went unused for many years at Harvard).</p>
<p>for those that do not support college-based merit aid, why draw the line at corporate and other private merit scholarships? After all, these companies are receiving federal tax breaks for their $$, so we still pay (at least ~40%).</p>
<p>[Sorry, I’m a boolean logic kinda guy - all in or all out.]</p>
<p>I don’t have a list. When S1 applied to colleges (without requesting financial aid), one college offered him $$ to attend. He decided to go elsewhere. In the late 1990s, U of Rochester promised a $10k scholarship to students scoring over 1200 on the SAT. A schoolmate of my S took up that scholarship though his family was very well off.</p>
<p>bluebayou: My take on non-institutional scholarships is that the companies are not diverting funds from need-based aid the way that colleges are.</p>
<p>I give up on trying to explain the fungibility issue to you. Either your Galaleo and I’m the pope or the other way around. But would you still object to a college offering merit aid if it met 100% of need?</p>
<p>marite: I have no doubt there are some that do that. Again, I think that’s wrong to divert from the need-based aid in order to do so. I am questioning, however, the poster who said there was a slew of colleges out there that do this on a regular basis–taking 60%+ of funds earmarked for need-based aid and diverting it to merit monies. This is really what I’m questioning. He promised to pm me a reference, or a list of those schools. I’ve yet to see it. Once I get it, though, I’ll be sure and post it. ;)</p>
<p>I know some people who make make decent 5-figure incomes, live well below their means, and have amassed huge savings by driving the same cars for years, not getting every new electronic toy, etc. Based on income they are not wealthy - based on savings they are. I don’t think they should be penalized in the scholarship game for having saved their money while those who have squandered it claim poverty for their kids, despite having higher incomes. I see a place for both need-based and merit-based scholarships, as well as talent (athletic, music, etc) based ones.</p>
<p>If you only knew how funny that last comment of yours was. But, back to the argument, I repeat, would you still object to a college offering merit aid if it met 100% of need?</p>
<p>I would therefore guess that the need-based aid argument is a smoke screen for your real objection, which is pretty much what I guessed all along.</p>