News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
March 19, 2007
Davidson College is today announcing that it will change future financial aid packages so that students will no longer need to borrow anything.
While several elite private universities and flagship public universities have effectively eliminated loans for students from low-income backgrounds, these programs (except for the one at Princeton University, which applies to all) typically have income limits. Davidson would be out front of other liberal arts colleges, including some with much larger endowments.
The move comes at a time that many colleges are rethinking their aid and loan policies. Just last week, Hamilton College, for example, announced that it was eliminating all merit scholarships and shifting the funds to need-based aid. Among the reasons Hamilton cited was a belief that demographics in the years ahead would require greater support for need-based financial aid.
Demographic projections also influenced Davidson. “We are concerned by the faces not applying to Davidson because they don’t believe that the college is affordable,” said Christopher J. Gruber, vice president and dean of admissions and financial aid.
Gruber said that the college has noticed a shift in recent years among would-be applicants from the lowest income families. It used to be possible to get such students to apply, tell them about the availability of financial aid, and then at the time of admission explain how an aid package would make the college affordable, Gruber said. Then the admitted applicant would be comparing aid packages, and Davidson’s was favorable, he said.
Now, he said, more would-be applicants — when they hear about the costs (total for next year will be close to $41,000) — are not applying at all, fearing that the only way they could end up with an aid package would be with one that had lots of loans.
“These students weren’t even applying to us,” Gruber said. Indeed the latest data posted about the college at the Economic Diversity of Colleges Web site shows relatively low figures at the college for low-income families and Pell Grant recipients.
Looking ahead, more students in the age cohort for a residential liberal arts education are going to come from low-income families, he said, so the college wanted to position itself for them. Davidson is already among a small group of private colleges with need-blind admissions, meaning that need for financial aid is not a factor in admissions decisions and it has a policy of meeting the full need of admitted applicants.
Notably, Davidson had already taken steps to limit loans. Last year, the college adopted a policy of limiting the loan component of aid packages to $3,000 a year. (The new policy cut student debt over four years by $7,000. Previously, loan limits started at $4,000 for freshmen, going up $500 a year, so that after four years students graduated with $19,000 in debt.) While the decision to eliminate loans completely will cost the college an additional $3.5 million, Gruber said it was worth it to take loans out of the equation entirely.
Gruber said that he thought there was a chance other liberal arts colleges might match the policy, and that it would be “beautiful” if that happened.
One aid expert, asked about the shift, questioned whether it made sense to completely eliminate loans, when some students and their families could afford modest loans.
But an economist of higher education said he saw the logic to the move. Michael McPherson, president of the Spencer Foundation and former president of Macalester College, said that many private colleges these days focus on “how to get more paying applicants,” so it is commendable for a college to be thinking about ways to get more low-income students.
McPherson said there is evidence that a very simple message can have a big impact. In 2004, Harvard University announced that it was eliminating all expected contributions from the families of students with family incomes of up to $40,000 (a level since increased to $60,000 ). When the university adopted its policy, it saw an immediate increase in the proportion of new students from low-income families.
Before Harvard had its new policy, it was also giving very generous aid packages to students in this group, probably identically good, McPherson said, but applicants responded to the simplicity of the revised policy. “Anyone could have seen that if you got into Harvard, you would be able to afford it, but it seems true that when they publicly stated in a new way what they were already doing, they got a lot more of these applicants,” McPherson said.
A straightforward message “can be effective,” he said.
Robert F. Vagt, Davidson’s president, said it was also important to send a message to those who enroll about their post-graduation options. In the last year, he said, he has heard from at least six seniors who told him that they wanted to be teachers or work for a nonprofit group or take some socially valuable, but financially not so lucrative, job. “They are telling me, ‘I can’t afford to do that,’ ” Vagt said. “Debt is affecting students’ choice of careers,” he said.
By combining the need to attract low-income students with the goal of encouraging all students to consider service-oriented jobs, Vagt said, “this is the right thing to do.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
How very noble of Davidson, considering only 33% of their students qualify for need-based aid and only 7% of their students are Pell eligible! In fact, of the national liberal colleges in the first tier of USNWR they have the fifth fewest Pell eligible students as a percentage of their enrollment. I would like to see proof they remain 100% need-blind because the statistics don’t support it.
Woody from Oregon, at 8:30 am EDT on March 19, 2007
Robert brings up and interesting point about the effect of this on the upper-middle class. In the NPR story I heard driving in today, it said that the financial aid package would cover the student’s “unmet need". As I understood it, parental contributions are already accounted for. If that really is the case, I see upper-middle class families still playing their fair share based upon income and assets. If not, then I am confused.
Dr. A., Professor at The University of Virginia, at 8:55 am EDT on March 19, 2007
I understand Woody from Oregon’s skepticism, but the article suggests that Davidson’s policy change is designed to address the issue he raises. This is evidenced in the statement “We are concerned by the faces not applying to Davidson because they don’t believe that the college is affordable.”
By eliminating the uncertainty of the question “how much will I need to borrow to finance my Davidson degree?” from the application process, the university hopes to convince more low income students to apply.
Bela Barner, AVP Strategic Research at National-Louis University, at 11:46 am EDT on March 19, 2007
Student loans could be available, with a cap of $15,000 for the total of four years, for ALL students, which are forgivable per year of teaching, volunteer, or non-profit work. The payment plan would be for 30 years, with minimal interest, if any. Work-study programs with DECENT wages and job training could help,too. Further help could be given with mostly need-based grants. A few might be merit based. Intellectual achievement and promise should still be honored somehow. Middle and upper-middle class students need help also, albeit not as urgently: with 2 kids in college, 41x4x2= $328,000.00. This is tuition for the rich, not for any level of the middle class. As residents of California, my kids are blessed with a top-rate public higher educational system, but not all states provide as well for their citizens. Private colleges are still essential for all income groups.One aspect of tuition savings which has not been mentioned is the high rate of divorce of the parents of these students. The economic effect of divorce is to create a family which now must fund two households instead of one, which siphons off much discretionary money. Divorce generates emotions which are often at odds with the effort and strict budgeting which make significant college savings possible. Without changing the punishing loan practices of many colleges, the children already hurt by their parents’ divorce will get even another swift kick when they graduate heavily in debt.
miracatta, at 1:36 pm EDT on March 19, 2007
This is a hugely important, and needed move that proves Davidson walks the talk.
All you naysayers just don’t get it: The student loan industry are far worse than credit card companies. Millions of people are having their lives wrecked because of these loans. Or maybe you do get it, but just don’t care.
Davidson Alumni should be hugely impressed- as I am- with this move, and give accordingly.
Alan Collinge, Founder at Studentloanjustice.org, at 5:46 pm EDT on March 19, 2007
I’m not a college administrator but I do have a Davidson alumni connection via my wife and we do contribute to Davidson’s annual fund. I’m not sure what Robert sees as the intent of Davidson’s move, but here is how it is stated in an alumni email: “The Trustees believe that this action is the necessary response to the financial situation facing many applicants and their families, and that it is consistent with a core value of the college—that a Davidson education should be affordable to all students, regardless of means.” As such, I can’t realistically envision this move as having the, “the opposite impact of its intent.” Davidson has not talked of providing anyone with, “more grant money than they actually need to make it possible to attend.”
parent of 3, parent, at 5:46 pm EDT on March 19, 2007
It is laudable that colleges have decided that it is desirable to offer more aid to poor families. But where does the aid come from? Increasingly, the colleges are playing a shell game that takes money from other families to give to poorer families. The colleges jack up their tuition ffrom $30,000 to $40,000 a year, deny aid to any family that has been disciplined enough to save for college or retirement or to pay down a mortgage, and then give it to other families. So in order to protect some families from college costs, the colleges simply take it from other families. Somehow, they feel justified in a Robin-Hood sort of way. But if I paid for my own college, then worked and saved my whole life to pay down my mortgage and put money aside for half of my children’s college costs, why should I be forced to go into debt to pay for someone else’s child as well? It’s one thing to deny my children aid becuase their parents have been prudent. It is quite another force us to take on debt to pay for another family’s college costs.
If we think affordable college is an important national priority, why isn’t this handled with taxes like all other social programs, instead of direct redistribution from one family to another, managed by colleges who decide (free of anti-trust restrictions) the rules for who pays, and who gets a free ride?
Greg, at 2:22 pm EDT on March 26, 2007
Yeah for the poor. yeah for the minorities... I went to a state college, and left with $42K in loans. My dad was upper low-lower middle class, so we didnt qualify. Also, I spent 3 years in the military and came out with a $5k GI bill. They said I made too much money. Hmm if I didnt work id be homeless and hungry. I never made more then $20k till after i graduated college yet they said i made too much for grants so I had to use loans to get me thru school....
What about us. HUH!!!!! There have always been programs in place for the poor and minorities.
Jon, at 9:25 pm EDT on June 9, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
The Director of the CVT program is also the program administrator. The director is responsible for providing leadership for ... see job
The University of California Riverside invests in your future through employee training and career development, access to ... see job
School of Engineering & Architecture Department: Architecture & Design Campus: Byblos Vacancy date: Spring 2009 see job
The successful candidate will teach undergraduate classroom and on-line courses in speech, interpersonal communication, ... see job
FGCU, a member of the State University System of Florida, is a comprehensive university created to address the educational ... see job
Columbus State Community College invests in employee development by providing numerous resources, partnerships, training and ... see job
Cornell University, located in Ithaca, New York, is an inclusive, dynamic, and innovative Ivy League university and New ... see job
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Eastern Kentucky University, located in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky near the Heart of the Bluegrass, is a ... see job
all or nothing?
While I applaud Davidson’s move, at least as it impacts low income students, I am concerned that those upper-middle income families, who clearly can choose to borrow to experience the value of a Davidson education (in addition, of course, to receiveing grant aid), will in fact get more grant money than they actually need to make it possible to attend. If that is the case, Davidson’s move will have the opposite impact of its intent — taking grant money away from the significantly needy and awarding it to those with less need. Good intent — potenitally ill result. It does not have to be all or nothing.
Robert J. Massa, Vice President at Dickinson College, at 8:25 am EDT on March 19, 2007