Should top Colleges/Universities offer more true scholarships?

One of the reasons that "top-tier" colleges don't offer merit-based scholarships is that they don't need to; they're going to get the same caliber of students, no matter what they offer in terms of merit-based need. As far as your daughter, you both need to realize that, if she's going to the best institution she got into, chances are that she'll be with a lot of people who are just as smart as she is. As a graduate student at one of those "top institutions," there is a certain amount of "freshman shock" that I see in the classes I teach; these kids are used to being the very, very top in their high schools and they have a hard time realizing that they are at school with a bunch of very smart people. Some really thrive and come into their own in that environment, but others can be totally shocked and take a while to recover.

I say all of this to point out that the "elite schools" don't need to offer lots of merit-based scholarships, since they are going to continue to attract all of these great students. Bear in mind, the universities do offer some scholarships like these, but a lot of the money has been shifted to need-based. I think this is a good thing; at least in theory, you're allowing smart students who would otherwise be unable to attend your school to get a great education.

In practice, of course, very few people get as much financial assistance as they think they need. Looking at it from the inside, I think they're probably right. Where I am, there is constant talk among the administration about "growing the endowment," and working to have more and more money (as if it's a race with our friends in MA and NJ). Most of the infrastructure improvements come from alumni donations, so only operating costs are potentially funded through the endowment, and it certainly seems like a greater fraction of the operating costs could and should come from the endowment. I understand it's important to have a stable financial pedestal, but it almost rises to the level of hoarding.

Endowments are growing by leaps and bounds, but most of that is through investment. Our institution's head of investing is paid more than the university president and he earns it. I don't think that very much (if any) tuition money goes into the endowment, but there's also almost no flow the other way: very little (if any) endowment money goes toward tuition.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cam @ Jul 22 2007, 10:41 AM) [snapback]483140[/snapback]</div>

If more(and I mean a lot more) of the "top and brightest" students would opt to go to other schools that offer better scholarship packages, then maybe some of the other elite ivy league or ivy league like schools might begin to match. These top colleges aren't going to dig in their endowment to pay for top students because there's enough students of "top/brightest caliber" that can pay and are willing to pay the exorbitant tuition. But yes, those that do choose(and it is a choice) to go and pay(or take out a loan) do subsidize some, but if the majority of the students have to eat that bill who are they really subsidizing?

 

Cam, I think your basic proposition is flawed, that an individual college has a societal interest in educating the best and brightest.

As a practical matter, they could not care less. They are driven by the dictates of a business. What is the chance your daughter will become a rich, contribution giving alumnus ? How likely is it that she will bring fame to the college she attends, that translates into even better recruitment in the future ? Will she become part of the cadre of talented post-docs that attract top professorial research talent ? A professor is cheap, but the resources the college has to have to attract that person can be *really* expensive. Does she have characteristics that attract any of the above people -- which are the ones the college really wants. Does she at least fill a political goal of the college, such as accepting minorities ?

If all the college can see is a student who can successfully complete an undergraduate
curriculum, that would be someone who they do not refuse admission to, but they are hardly inclined to throw money in that person's direction. Endowments are a college's capital reserve. They are spent where the investment return is greatest. And make no mistake, a research college's ongoing capital requirements are huge. Check out the price tag of an observatory, or a particle accelerator, or even an inexpensive super computer.

I have some point of reference for what *really* bright means for today's high school students. My son is good at math. He just finished 9th grade, and was just short of an 'A' in his honors Calculus AB course, but did score 5/5 on the AP test. His high school is one of the top 10 in our state of 2 million people, and there is typically one student every year or two that are on his math track at his school. And yet, he was disqualified by the second round of a national math competition this year, while 30 students from around the state made the grade. One other anecdote: my cousin is a PhD computer science grad from Berkeley. Not only did he not receive a merit scholarship, he was not even accepted to MIT.

The 99th percentile in the US high school body is not impressive. Over the 99.95th percentile is often a truly remarkable individual. If *they* are not getting fully paid educations, then I'll agree the system(s) are failing our society.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jul 22 2007, 02:34 PM) [snapback]483201[/snapback]</div>

Georgia has this. Hope Scholarship

HOPE - Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally - is Georgia's unique scholarship program that rewards students with financial assistance in degree, diploma, and certificate programs at eligible Georgia public and private colleges and universities, and public technical colleges. Since the HOPE Program began in 1993, more than $3 billion in HOPE funds has been awarded to more than 900,000 students attending Georgia's colleges, universities, and technical colleges.


http://www.gsfc.org/hope/

 

There is much more grant and scholarship money available when Democrats are in office. Education, healthcare and other essential social problems are the first to go when Republicans get in.

 

The idea that colleges are there to educate the youth is pretty much archaic. They do this because they've always done it... However, now a days colleges are like any other corporation - they're there to make money. The large endowments they have go towards making their breadwinners happy - new labs, grants for research, etc.

To prove this point, there was one simply outstanding professor in the chemistry department at my college. He really cared about the students, and did everything in his power to be involved in their education and ensure that they not only passed his class, but did it by learning the material. Most weekends he had various study groups over at his apartment. He set up and ran an hour long TV show on the campus network where students could call in with questions (including homework questions!). He did more than any other professor in the entire school to help the students learn. And yet, he was never offered tenure. At the end of every year there was a question about whether or not the university would have him back next year. Other professors around him got tenure without a problem. The difference (in the eyes of the university) was the research. He didn't do any. He focused on the students, and the university treated him like a second class citizen for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cam @ Jul 22 2007, 09:59 AM) [snapback]483165[/snapback]</div>

I remember going through this exercise. IIRC, the FAFSA doesn't take any expenses into account, and is based solely on income and size of family. (It might take mortgage or rent into account, but I can't recall).

The upshot is that you have to realize just how wealthy you really are. Most Americans in the upper 5th of the income level don't realize they are there, and think they are "middle class". Search on this forum for those who were shocked that the "Alternative Minimum Tax" ate away at their tax credit for buying a Prius.

The reality is that the top 20% of wage earners in this country are those in HOUSEHOLDS with $88,000 of income ... just $44,000 per person for a married couple. If you and your spouse earn more than $21 an hour, guess what? You are in the top fifth of wage earners.

Remember that next time they say a tax break "benefits the rich". You are the rich.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cam @ Jul 23 2007, 11:35 PM) [snapback]483973[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, doesn't it suck, though? The colleges with the good teachers are the ones that are ranked lower, while the ones that only care about research are ranked higher. FWIW, my school has one of the largest endowments in the country and does offer some merit based scholarships. I managed to qualify for half tuition, but that was only after kicking some serious butt on the ACT and SAT's, and getting a 3.999998 in high school. Other schools i applied to offered me more (I could have had a full ride to one), but weren't ranked nearly as highly in my field. Of course, the rankings mostly come from the type of talent they can attract, and they do that through getting the professors with good academic reputations who have produced some great stuff through research.

What we really need to do is draw a line between the research institutions and colleges. Develop a ranking system based on the quality of the attention provided to the students, where the ivy league schools are those that treat the students and teachers (note i emphasize this over professors, because the latter includes researchers) how they should be treated. Rank the purely research institutions much lower so that students know that their education comes second, something that really isn't clear to people who apply to these schools.

 

Personally, I think the value of "elite" schools is over rated. It is my opinion that the amount that a college student can learn is limited far more by their ability and desire, than by the eliteness of the school they attend. So, unless they plan to go into a field where a pedigree matters, such as politics, then I see no point wasting the extra money on the pedigree.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 22 2007, 12:30 PM) [snapback]483153[/snapback]</div>

Exactly - my son who starts his JD/MBA program next month was given full free rides by a bunch of schools and as the "quality" (ranking) of the school improved - the amount of $ being offered decreased

Also - the "top schools" have minority quotas to fill - and they will focus the money they allocate for scholarships there - not to non-minorities.

There is NO doubt in my mind that checking off that box on the application - am not applying for financial aid - aids in the acceptance process for non-minorities.

My number three is starting college next month - and on face book - he and his friends all saw the people that got into different schools - they were amazed how affirmative action works - the birth of conservatives begins earlier and earlier - used to be when they started paying taxes - now its when they get turned down by schools who let in others with lower grades, lower sat's, etc.