Merit

The discussion re: Merit Aid vs. “Need” is duplicitous, wealth redistribution, liberal pablum at best.

My child has done all of the work to get into the finest schools — but despite my 6 figure income we can’t afford to start writing $50K checks every year for 3 kids. The cost of living in New York and New Jersey is excessive. Taxes are higher in NJ than in any state in the country. I have no pension plan to fall back on. I have high expenses. But who cares?? Why is any of this considered? The best students should get the package — not need based because their parents are slackers. Enough of this slide to the middle.

Tom, at 1:35 pm EDT on May 27, 2008

I think a Parent makes a good point. I am opposed to merit aid for any number of reasons, including that it turns financial aid, the purpose of which is to increase access, into an exercise in improving institutional image and rankings. However, many middle class families feel caught, well, in the middle— unable to qualify for financial aid and unable to swallow the stunning cost of private colleges. State universities are full of their kids. In the middle class squeeze, merit aid sounds awfully good. The question of what, exactly, constitutes need is a fair one. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider financial aid formulas.

Mommy, at 2:45 pm EDT on March 16, 2007

Follow Hamilton’s Lead!

A Parent makes a good point that merit-based aid helps many middle class families who would otherwise be “squeezed” out of financial aid (too poor to pay, too wealthy — at least by institutional calculation — to get help paying) afford tuition.

But keep in mind that most “merit aid” is really just money taken out of the hands of those who need it and given to those who clearly don’t but are happy to take it in exchange for boosting a school’s spot in the USNWR rankings.

I was almost tempted to play into this system two years ago when NYU offered me $100k (that someone else needed much more than I did) to choose them over Yale. NYU is not the only school with a high sticker price which plays this game — George Washington U, which recently became the first school to push mandatory fees above $50,000 a year, does it too. But GW deserves some kudos for cutting back on merit aid and pouring the savings to need-based.

Also, GW’s astronomic tuition might not be such a bad idea. For some families, $50k isn’t all that different from $40k. If they’re happy to pay it and it means more money for the university, maybe it could mean more money for financial aid. A cursory glance at GWU’s financial aid breakdown shows they clearly favor merit-based aid (part of the school’s push to climb the rankings), but if enough of the extra $$ could go to need-based aid, this would be an interesting study in wealth redistribution: charge the wealthy as much as they’re willing to pay, shift the funds to helping those who can’t afford tuition. Outside-the-boxy, I guess, but what do you think?

Zach Marks, National Education Policy Director at The Roosevelt Institution, at 3:20 pm EDT on March 16, 2007

More than rankings involved

Why should a school not pay extra to attract strong students who are more likely to make it through to a degree and more likely to be successful alumni? Speaking as a faculty member I prefer to teach stronger students.

I believe better students mean a better school.

Speaking as a parent I’m pleased my daughter will be rewarded for her hard work with substantial amounts of merit aid. This allows her to attend a college of her choice without having to owe tens of thousands of dollars when she graduates.

Rob Rittenhouse, CS Faculty at McMurry University, at 5:02 pm EDT on March 16, 2007

I for one am relieved that some schools are applying more “merit aid” to financial aid. I know some of the middle class families may feel targeted by it, but it helps the poverty in one great gesture. I am from a poor economic area. I began working at 15 to help my parents pay the rent. I never had time to attend after school activities. Even growing up, I was never able to join the Scouts or be part of any club or organization that may be pasted on a scholarship form. My own siblings show that our place in life is on the buttom rung, 2 dropping out of high school while a younger brother and I graduated with a hope for something better. Financial NEED awards are the only way we can go on to college. Without, we’d have to take twice as long to graduate, having to work fulltime to support our decision to go to school. The amount of money borrowed through loans is preposterous for someone in our place. I’m not one that looks for a free ride, but I’d like something managable for when I do graduate.

Scott, at 7:46 am EDT on March 17, 2007

Merit Aid and Hamilton

As the parent of a graduate of Hamilton College and an educator, I stand in full support of Hamilton’s decision to move toward full need-based aid. My daughter would not have qualified for merit aid at Hamilton but did at other institutions. Nevertheless, Hamilton did meet her full need and made it possible for her to attend Hamiltion, a decision that continues to pay major rewards in her life. As her parents, in the middle income group, we made a decision that an education at Hamilton was worth our financial commitment and it meant less for our future. It was all worth it. It depends on how you value education and in the broader sense, the value of educating more young people for the benefit of society. Hamilton’s decision is one that will benefit society as well as the college. Congratulations for making an excellent decision.

Arthur Shahverdian, Mr., at 10:16 am EDT on March 19, 2007

Hamilton, Oberlin, and merits

Much as I applaud Hamilton’s brave decision to abandon merits — whose fraught history I explore in my book, AIDING STUDENTS, BUYING STUDENTS (Vanderbilt UP, 2005) — I must be a killjoy and point out that Hamilton is not the first to do this as it claims. Oberlin abandoned merits in the 1950s, though it got back into them in the early 1990s (1985 in the music Conservatory) after anguished debate and competitive pressure.

Rupert Wilkinson

Rupert Wilkinson, at 5:46 pm EDT on March 19, 2007

merit through admissions

MKT, you have good echoes from recent history. When selective colleges got together in the 1950s to stop a wasteful, merit bidding war, one of the arguments they used was just the one you made above.Since then, however, a hamfisted and ambiguous college antitrust law has made it unclear how much some colleges can get together to limit merit aid. Unfairly, in my view, the law allows some such cooperation among colleges that claim to have need-blind admissions need-blind even if they don’t meet all need, but excludes colleges like Hamilton that operate need-aware admissions while meeting all need.

Rupert Wilkinson

Rupert Wilkinson, at 3:35 pm EDT on March 21, 2007

Middle Income Hurt

Dear Pat Z: having written against merits (my book AIDING STUDENTS, BUYING STUDENTS carries a debate between ‘Mike Merit’ and ‘Alison Antimerit’) I would be arrogant to deny the real hurt of people like you and other respondents here just above the cusp of official financial need. And some colleges do target their merits at your income group. Unfortunately, since the early 1990s, merits have increasingly gone to the rich. They are a very hit or miss, cherry-picking way for colleges to give deserved support to people like you. At the same time, Hamilton needs to answer the challenging ‘Let’s Do the Math’ response above.

RW

Rupert Wilkinson, at 6:25 am EDT on March 27, 2007

Response: Let’s Do the Math

Career Change, I think you have a point in theory, compared to need-based aid merit-based aid is just a drop in the bucket. In you model, eliminating merit-based aid would only reduce tution by a negligible few hundred dollars. I think you ignore, however, the way that financial aid is inextricably tied to the financial aid process at Hamilton College. As the article describes, students are admitted regardless of need until the financial aid budget is depleted. Thereafter, need is adversely looked upon in the admission process (if you are a student who needs financial assistance to attend — which the school does not possess because it is tied up in merit-based aid for a student who, though an asset to the school’s rankings and prestige, could otherwise pay his or her way — you are not going to be admitted. The reality is that, in this and many other cases, money used for merit scholarships, though small in comparison to money available for need has a negative effect on a substantial amount of students.

College Student, at 5:41 am EDT on April 4, 2007

Travesty of the Elite Colleges’ Elimination of Merit-Based Aid

The Travesty of the Elite Colleges’ Elimination of Merit-Based Aid: One Mom’s Opinion

After spending many months with my son researching colleges across the country and finding the “perfect fit” for him, I am appalled by the injustice that is going on with “financial aid.” Although my son could have attended the local state school for free, the best “fit” for his college goals was to attend a highly academic small private liberal arts college. He worked exceedingly hard in order to earn admission to many of our nation’s top ranked colleges and universities.

We are a family of six that is “stuck in the middle” between not qualifying for “financial aid” according to the government standards, and not being able to “afford” the $46,000/year cost of a small private liberal arts college. We are dependent upon merit-based scholarship money in order for him to meet his college goals. There are hundreds of thousands of students in this country that are in this same quandary. Many of these students, like my son, are top-notch kids that have superior achievements and are worthy of merit-based awards. However, we found out in this whole process that although he is worthy of acceptance into some of the most selective schools in the nation, such as Bowdoin, Hamilton and Pomona, he is not worthy to attend, because these selective schools choose not to reward outstanding achievements unless your family makes below a certain income. That income level is dictated by the federal government. If the federal government is the one dictating where my son can afford to attend college, then I would like to be able to receive a federal tax refund in order to pay for my son’s college. If I did not pay such exorbitant taxes, then I would have no problem paying for the so-called elite colleges.

Why are these colleges willing to sacrifice highly qualified students by giving all of their endowment money to “need-based” financial aid, rather than sharing the endowment with merit-based aid?

The elite colleges in this country are always professing that they want diversity on their campuses. They want students with varying backgrounds, values and experiences and yet they are shutting out an entire socio-economic class of families in this country by eliminating merit-based aid.

I have no problem with need-based aid, but I do have a major problem if that need-based aid is given out in lieu of merit-based aid. If the selective colleges could find a balance between need-based and merit-based aids, then they would have true diversity in their student body, while maintaining their high level academic profiles.

There is another solution to this dilemma, but only the colleges with endowments in the billions would be able to meet this challenge. If the so-called elite colleges really wanted a truly diverse, highly academic profiled student body, then they would abolish tuition all together. Many of the Ivy League institutions have big enough endowments to accomplish such a bold challenge, but are they brave enough? By abolishing tuition, many of the superior academic upper-middle class students would then willingly apply to these highly selective institutions. The applicant pool would thereby be the best possible, since there would not be the obstacle of tuition that prevents many of them from attending or even applying. The typical “trust fund babies” would continue to apply and attend, and most likely donate to the endowment anyway, even if there was no tuition. This would enable the endowments to continue to be funded.

In the end, our family chose not to second mortgage our home and my son chose not to bury himself in student loan debt, in order to attend one of the so-called elite colleges. My son made the decision to attend Hobart College, which is an excellent academic institution that still believes in rewarding superior academic achievements and potential, by investing in merit-based scholarships as well as need-based scholarships.

I believe more and more highly qualified upper middle-class students will continue to flock away from the so-called elite colleges that have chosen to eliminate merit-based scholarships, and attend colleges and universities that reward achievements regardless of the family income level.

As a result, these other colleges will get the highly academic profiled student body that is truly diverse. We are very grateful to all of the institutions that continue to honor and award merit-based and need-based scholarships, some of which include from our experience: Case Western, Clark University, Emory, Hobart, Loyola, NYU, Occidental, Rollins, Skidmore, Stonehill, and Trinity College.

In my humble opinion as a mom, any college or university that wants to maintain the highest level of academic excellence and a diverse student body, should either invest in merit-based scholarships or abolish tuition all together. Lisa Barlow

Phoenix, AZ

Lisa Barlow, Travesty of the Elite Colleges’ Elimination of Merit-Based Aid, at 4:30 am EDT on May 10, 2007