U.S. colleges shift more aid to richer students, study says

[datasuspect]

rich people need financial assistance i guess:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0609010200sep01,1,4018107.story?coll=chi-news-hed

"When doling out financial aid, America's colleges and universities are increasingly awarding more money to upper-income students, according to a report released Thursday.

The study, by the Washington-based Education Trust, found that although state and federal policies have shifted money away from low-income students, the greatest change has been at the college level.

Though the neediest students still get larger grants than the wealthiest, colleges are directing more money toward middle- and upper-income students, because they are more likely to have the grades and test scores that boost academic rankings, according to the report.

"Educational opportunity is taking a back seat to institutional prestige," said Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust. She blamed federal and state financial aid policies butsaid colleges also are responsible. "The biggest shift of all has occurred under the radar screen at the colleges themselves," she said."

[stepnw1f]

1. That is So Wrong

what a kick in the teeth that is.

[datasuspect]

4. nothing surprises me anymore

there is a concerted effort in this country to expand the underclass and keep it down.

[stepnw1f]

6. I Believe You to Be Correct

I have thought this for sometime, but with what I see and read, it makes it harder for me to give the wealthy the benefit of the doubt. I know there are very good wealthy people just as their are very bad wealthy people, I just can't help but think the "bad" wealthy people have taken over this country and are concerting an effort to keep a permanent underclass. It infuriates me...

[datasuspect]

11. even the "good" wealthy are beneficiaries of the same system

that rewards the "evil" wealthy.

[rpannier]

2. Why not

that's how almost all loans work?
Give money to those who need it least and keeping it from the people who need it most.

[datasuspect]

3. i think it's referring to "gift" aid

full ride scholarships/grants.

[Ravenseye]

5. I don't necessarily have a problem with it

They're not specifically giving money to rich kids, but to kids with better grades and test scores, who tend to be middle to upper income. As far as higher education goes, there is somethign to be said for academic rankings, and the prestige of the school, and a better one helps the entire school, as well as her students past present and future. As long as needy students aren't left out in the cold, I see no problem with this in general.

Look at schools like Harvard. They've got their prestige so high, and their endowment, that they really don't even have to charge tuition. They do it mostly to keep the rich kids honest, and give free rides to the poorer ones, and have enough left over to give scholarships to the truly worthy students to encourage them to go there over say Yale. That's the model alot of Universitys are looking to follow.

[stepnw1f]

9. So Do Rich Kids Need the Aid?

I'd say they have better test scores because they went to better schools growing up. Not to mention, the influence of affluence on their lives growing up, gives them an already leg up on those poor kids who struggle alot more to get where the rich kids already are born into. I have a huge problem with that.

[Ravenseye]

15. I think then we should put more money into equal education

The fact that every child in this country doesn't get an equal chance of an education is criminal. No other industrialized nation punishes children for where they live, yet here we are. Depending on what district you live in your education will vary tremendously, partially because of property taxes being disparate. If you live in the rich district you get the best teachers, equpiment, books, lunches, gyms, and fancy gadgets. If you live in a poor district you get fewer good teachers, no equpment, sometimes no books, crappy lunches if any and dilapidated facilities.

I don't think it's the private university who is responsible for righting these problems, but the public as a whole to come up with a better educational system to feed into these institutions.

By giving more scholarships to poor kids who are undereducated, the universities do nothing to solve the problem. THe problem is our public education system and what should be addressed is it's failure to provide the universities with a wide range of well educationed children from all walks of life.

[alarimer]

37. Depending on local property taxes, which vary greatly

is the major problem in local school funding. Inner cities and rural areas have similar problems with lack of funding. Compared to suburban school districts they are miles behind.

[Ravenseye]

39. Agreed

Though I don't necessarily think that we need to move away from property taxes, but we should distribute them more equally. When 'rich' people move and cluster together in one district, and 'poor' in another the problem begins a feedback loop. more and more money for one school, less and less for another, till the 'bad' district has nearly no hope of pulling itself up.

Money should be gathered and distributed on a statewide basis if not federal basis, so that each school has equivalent facilities, books, teachers, etc. The fact that a city school's property management costs might be higher should be taken into the equation, and not out of a total budget. What I mean is that if there are 100 schools and 1 out of every 100 dollars shouldn't just be given to each school. Some schools would get less, some more, depending. Rural schools might need less money as their facilities management and teacher pay might be lower, and so on.

The way it's done now is unfair to children living in bad districts.

[Horse with no Name]

21. Take our school for instance

It is a chronically underperforming school.
There are smart kids that come out of here, however, without those grants they wouldn't be allowed to show the world that they are AS smart as a kid who came from a strong, wealthy school. We have ONE teacher that teaches ALL college core subjects which limits the kids for flexibility to have a more rounded schedule.
With NCLB, the parents (the non-wealthy ones) really have no control over the curriculum. They are at the behest of the school districts (in Texas--school districts run the show, not the state).
And...our school employs more coaches than legit teachers--even to the point that one of my friend's son was told in his Spanish I class this year that the teacher knows nothing about Spanish...he was just "stuck" there because he was a coach and there was no place else to put him.
Anyone that says that rich kids don't ALREADY have the advantage...has obviously never lived in a poor school district.

[Ravenseye]

23. That's why the focus should be on public education

If poor kids can't get the same education as rich kids, then we need to fix that system and not complain that a private business is looking out for itself, rather than trying to fix societies ills. That's not their job. Education needs a higher priority of focus in this country and it needs to be fixed from the ground up, not from the top down.

[stepnw1f]

58. It's Sickening That It isn't Already Obvious Enough

that rich kids don't need aid for education. I can't tell whether some are just plain liars or they just live in a bubble. Either way, it really pisses me off.

Oh and ... what percentage of today's population is considered poor. Anyone know?

[Irreverend IX]

62. The probable rationale...

Is to draw on a population of students who will pay greater amounts of tuition on the whole and perform better in school. The lower-income students who really need the aid may end up dropping out because it isn't enough, and their need to work for their tuition money may impede their performance in classes and drag down the school's academic ratings. Middle or upper-middle class kids who get a bigger aid offer from a particular school are more likely to choose that school, and that may net the school more money and a better average grade in the long run. It's a mercenary thing to do, of course, but that's what the education system has been reduced to.

[datasuspect]

10. not giving a "leg up" to those who aren't already privileged

is the only part that bothers me.

i mean sure, you can be raised in a wealthy/somewhat wealthy/comfortable family and enjoy good living circumstances, good schools, and supportive environments: it ONLY makes sense to give those who have enough EVEN more.

i dunno, it doesn't seem right.

and the "more academically prepared because they are from better families" ruse seems pretty fishy. it's like they are admitting the unfairness of the system that benefits the rich the most. and revelling in it.

i suppose if there wasn't a system in place to punish poverty and keep people poor, this wouldn't be an issue.

let the poor fend for themselves i guess.

[Ravenseye]

16. I just don't see it as a private universities place

Why should a private university take responsibility for the failure of our public education system? I think that if a child from a poor family is acaedmically qualified to go to school they should get every bit of help they can get, from gift aid, to low interest loans. No child who wants to go to university, and gets accepted to a school, should be unable to attend for monetary reasons.

Still, if there aren't as many good students from poorer backgrounds, because they come from crappy schools in poor districts....why is it up to the private University to solve that problem?

We need to address public education in this country on a national, or at least state wide basis, so that the poor district can provide the same level of education to each student as the rich district. Until that happens we won't even begin to solve the problem.

Even then though, part of it IS culture. It's hard to break out of an uneducated culture. If neither of your parents, if they both live with you, finished high school, and you don't have any books in the house, and education isn't stressed at all in your family...Well most likely you're not going to do that well in school. That's no fault of the school district, or the universty.

My point is that we can't let the poor fend for themselves, but we can't expect a private university to do the work for us.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. With all due respect -- Crap!

The 'prestige' of these schools is based upon the rich families that matriculate and the wealth they then donate back to the schools. Academically, they are no better than your average state university. And needy students ARE being left in the cold - that's the whole problem. Isn't that exactly what they were saying?

"they don't really even have to charge tuition. They do it mostly to keep the rich kids honest..."

do you really believe that? They charge tuition so that rich kids can say "I went to Harvard" and everybody knows that they paid out a shitload of cash to do so, making that rich kid someone good to know.

It's ALL about the money.

[acmejack]

18. You offer respect

pu are a much nicer person than I. The upper class must fend for themselves, no sense of noblesse oblige. Terrific. To claim a two tiered system in this allegedly "Democratic" Country needs to be perpetuated and reinforced is not worthy of respect IMO. But I am sick of the poor being forced lower and lower on the socio-economic scale. It makes for a truly vibrant oligarchy!

[Ravenseye]

19. Right back 'atcha

Prestige comes from a variety of things, and isn't immutable. Sure there are a top tier like the Ivy League schools and a few others, that will likely never drop too far as prestige goes, but that isn't because of the people they matriculate, but a general meme that they are 'great' in regular society.

Take Notre Dame for instance. Their prestige is very high. People consider it a great school. It has an insanely high name recognition, possibly higher than even Harvard's. Yet educationally it's not all that great. It's rankings are amongs the general public colleges, and even below some of those. It's prestige and rankings come from a 'belief' that it's a good school. Also people love it's football team, and for some reason a good football team translates for many into 'good school'.

As far as prestige and it's relation to endowments, it's generally the reverse. Endowments are grown, which then generate more prestige. The school gets more money, and then has more to spend. It's a slow process, but a number of schools have shown growth from middle of the pack universities to scraping into the upper Tier. For instnace The University of Pittsburgh was a mid ranked school 15-20 years ago, nothing much. It's ranking is much higher now (Newsweek ranked it 10th nationally in a recent article...of which of course Harvard was 1st. ;) ) They did it through numerous ways, but one was to grow their endowment and use it to improve their facilities, and encourage research. Their prestige growth had little to do with the rich families, and in fact Pitt still accepts a wide range of students, much wider than places like Harvard.

And many of these schools DON'T need to charge tuition. Even the smaller liberal arts colleges have endowments of more than a million per student. Even meager savings earings would generate nearly 50k per student in interest alone. Then think about schools like Harvard who have endowments of 25.9 BILLION which is close to 4 million per student. Their endowment alone in a savings acount would generate twice the amount they get in tuition every year, and I guarnatee you they're not dropping that money in common savings account. They're earning a good percentage on it.

You're right though. It is all about the money. Harvard, and all other nonpublic universities, are businesses. Their job isn't to correct the problems of the public educational system in this country, but to generate the best product they can, which will in turn help drive their endowments larger. That's their business. It's not charity work.

The problem is with our public schools, and the fact that a poor school district can be a curse on a kid, while a rich school district is a boon. That's a problem. It shouldn't matter where you live in this country you should have an equivalent level of education. Instead our system curses the people who don't live in 'good' school districts. That's what needs to be changed, not how a private organization decides to dole out their money.

You're right though, and I never claimed that needy students weren't being left out in the cold.

[kiahzero]

53. Tuition doesn't even cover the cost of education at many places.

I'm currently studying at UVA law, with tuition of over $30,000 a year. That covers something like a third of the actual cost of education. The rest comes from alumni and such.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Your claim that Harvard and Yale

are not academically better than the average state university is not one that the evidence supports, I think.

Your claim that "it's all about the money" is not one that I can see any way to disprove, but my experience of academics and how they thing and act makes me think it's a foolish one.

[alarimer]

38. College is more and more difficult for even the middle class

to afford. That might be part of this. I don't think they are talking about the wealthy here.

I also don't think all scholarships should be need-based. I think those with good grades and test scores should be rewarded as well.

[datasuspect]

44. the middle class is becoming a historical fact

and something from the past.

it is getting chipped away.

[ikojo]

55. What schools need to do is look at what a

kid has overcome to get the results he/she has attained. If that kid is the first in the family to attend college, that is an accomplishment. If that kid went to a working class school that did not offer a myriad of AP classes but they did well enough on the test to be admitted to the school, that should be recognized.

[bronxiteforever]

7. with "average" private colleges costing 36,000 a year -it is

amazing middle class people can send their children to college-thanks to the destruction of student loan program by the rethugs-and the poor student they give even less of a crap for them-Bushworld where he is always working for his "base"

[ComerPerro]

28. middle class people don't send their kids to private schools

[bronxiteforever]

31. you have got that right!

unless they want a second mortgage. Mine are at state universities

[alfredo]

8. The Landed Gentry do not want some low class serf

competing against their kids for the good paying jobs.

Eat The Rich

[datasuspect]

13. "you will never rise above your father's station"

unless of course you live in certain zip codes.

[alfredo]

42. I don't want to rise above my father's station. Greed is not

my religion.

[datasuspect]

43. the point being

class is becoming more rigid lately.

i forget where i read it, but it had to do with upward mobility (which may or may not have much to do with greed, say your father (or mother) was a janitor or janitress and you wanted to become a mathematician) and that generational mobility between classes is becoming a thing of the past.

point being, if you come from the lower rungs, the chances are getting better a given person will remain there.

[alfredo]

47. William Kristol said it best

“Among conservatives there's been too much pseudo-populism, almost too much concern and attention for, quote, 'the people'... After all, we conservatives are on the side of the lords and barons... We...are pulling up the drawbridge against the peasants.”
--William Kristoll

[tanyev]

12. Well, well, well. Ain't the ownership society grand?

[moondust]

14. In other news

some colleges are doing away with SAT tests as an admission requirement. I suspect it may be so that they don't feel obligated to accept a poor kid who does better academically than a rich kid when placed on the same more or less level playing field.

[BlooInBloo]

20. It should be illegal for PUBLICALLY funded schools...

... to provide financial aid to affluent kids/parents at the expense of aid to poor kids/parents. Public education should first and foremost be the *lubricant* of social mobility.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. I disagree.

The primary functions of publicy funded universities should be the creation and disemination of knowledge, not for social engineering. That means subsidising those students who are able enough that their loss would be a loss to the university who can't afford it, but *not* subisidising students to get degrees to help lift them out of poverty.

I think it would be an excellent thing if the *government* were to subsidise students who meet the academic criteria for university admission but can't afford it, but universities should be basing their decisions about how to spend their money mostly on academic grounds, which means subsidising the most able students.

[datasuspect]

25. EVERYONE should have equal access to these institutions

without regard to wealth or a favorable zip code.

do you not think there is some massive social engineering going on in ensuring that the scions of privilege maintain their status and really easy life transitions from educational level to educational and then to the work force?

trust me, i've worked in some pretty rarefied wealth-concentrated industries, where the top crust gets to where they are at strictly on the basis of their connections. sure there it takes some skill in schmoozing with your golf buddies to trade millions of dollars back and forth, but they have their shared social credentials and that's what counts. if you do not have those credentials, you pretty much are relegated to the rank and file.

getting in at the junior level in that world: not for everyone. your connections, your FATHER or other prominent male family member ensures your seat at THAT table.

and these aren't the smartest people on earth. often they are very narrow-minded and quite incurious about the world (kinda like the president).

the point is, there is a system in place that looks out for them.

what you call "social engineering" where it concerns the poor, i call an adaptive mechanism to allow a trickle of talent nominal access to a world that is effectively shut out to them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. I disagree that everyone should have equal access to university education.

University education has to be rationed, because it's expensive, and I think that the only fair grounds for rationing it on is academic performance.

I think that the UK system, where most (although decreasingly so, alas) of the costs of university are paid for by government subsidy, and students are eligible for loans, is probably better than the US one where ability to pay is a major criterion for admission, but certainly there has to be some form or rationing.

When Tom Lehrer talked about prohibiting discrimination "not merely on grounds of race and sex, but also on grounds of ability" he meant it to be satire.

[datasuspect]

27. the opportunity should be there for those who want it

it's not like universities are catchbasins of geniuses nowadays anyway.

it does get your foot in the door for elevating your social class though.

sometimes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I don't think that's economically viable.

It would cost too much to provide a university education for everyone who wants it, and in many cases that education would be completely wasted - it would benefit neither them nor society as a whole.

There has to be some form of rationing criteria. I think the only two possible ones are academic ability and income/parental income, and I think the former is unquestionably fairer.

[stepnw1f]

66. It's Rather Disgusting That People Here

actually rationalize inequality in this country without ever having to sacrifice a damn thing. Rather sociopathic, selfish and regressive. "But hey... there need to be poor folks for there to be rich folks."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. There have to be poor folks even if there aren't going to be rich folks.

No-one has ever come up with a method that would successfully eliminate poverty.

Introducing universal degree-level education will lead to more poor people, not fewer. So yes, in that sense I am rationalising inequality - if you educate everyone equally then either a lot of people will be wasting their time and the state will be wasting a lot of tax payer's money, or no-one will get educated well. However, the thing I'm advocating basing inequality on - academic ability - is one I think it's perfectly fair to reward.

I don't think highly of being called "disgusting, sociopathic, selfish and regressive", and I think it's especially contemptible to do it implicitly by without even having the courage to come out and do it outright.

Do you bite your thumb at me, sir?

[stepnw1f]

72. How arrogant... There Doesn't HAVE to Be Poor

unless you want there to be poor. It's a myth of complacency spurred by those who "got their own". Some love the current system, because they benefit from it. The system is just that... man-made and imperfect. It doesn't HAVE to be this way and you know it.

And I also thought it was plain enough for you to understand what I had said. It is amazing that you find my statement to be contemptible. Are you not aware of how you sound? Too bad... try living poor then get back to us with your own elite perspective of why we small people need to be poor. Your rationalization is disgusting and sociopathic. Sorry if that pisses you off, but your apologistic perspective on our current economic system tells me you like what you see and wish to keep it that way. I'd love to see you live in poverty... it would knock that smugness right out of you, I promise... and that is what scares the living shit out of the wealthy. I know, because the fear of being poor is all too evident with so much greed at the top.

And It wasn't a thumb at all...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. Some points:

:- I have never bothered to alert on anyone; I don't think you're worth the trouble of starting now. However, I would invite you to reread the rules on civility for posting, and consider them vis a vis such lines as "disgusting... selfish, sociopathic and regressive" and "I'd love to see you live in poverty", especially with as little provocation as I've given you and as little support as you advanced for them.

:-I think you need to look up what the word "sociopathic" means. It's a specific medical condition; if you can diagnosis it through the internet you could win a nobel prize for medicine.

:-I have already agreed with you that "it doesn't have to be this way"; however, whichever way it is there will still be poor people.

:-The current Western economic system (or family of economic systems) produces rather fewer poor people (in terms of living conditions) than any other system ever tried; I suspect that the best economic system possible will have a lot in common with that practiced currently in some European countries, and those certainly result in poor people.

:-I think the claim that there exist a set of changes that could be made that would eliminate povery altogether is almost certainly false and certainly has not a shred of evidence to support. Neither a) precapitalist societies, b) capitalist societies, or c) postcapitalist communist or socialist societies had any success eliminating poverty.

:-I don't know what gives you the idea that I think that "you small people need to be poor". I think the idea that there are "small people" is a weird and unpleasant one, as well as poorly-defined. I supect there are far fewer people who think like that in reality than in fiction (although I don't have any evidence for that suspicion). I think it inevitable but regrettable that there will exist some poor people. I don't think there need to be poor people anymore than there needs to be infant mortality or cancer (although eliminating either of those would be child's play compared to eliminating poverty completely).

:-"Do you bite your thumb at us, Sir?" "No sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I do bite my thumb, Sir" is a famous exchange from Romeo and Juliet, act I, scene I. It was my comment on the contemptibility of an indirect insult. However, since you've now called me disgusting and sociopathic to my face, it's no longer applicable, which I suppose is an improvement of sorts.

:-Your "accusation" of "liking what I see" has a fair ammount of truth to it. Living here in England, I see an economic system that, while far from perfect, has done a better job of reducing poverty than just about any other, and I do indeed like that. I think that there are certainly ways it can (a much stronger claim than "could") be improved - higher tax rates on the very rich, preferably imposed in consultation with other countries to avoid them simply resulting in the rich going elsewhere, a higher retirement age to make higher pensions viable, possibly a higher minimum wage although I'm not a good enough economist to be confident on that one - but I think that on the whole, it's a pretty good system. This *doesn't* mean that it doesn't fail anyone, but it does mean that it fails not many more people than the fewest possible.

:-In return for your hope that I end up living in poverty, may I say that I wish you nothing but the best for your future.

[w4rma]

52. It doesn't have to be expensive. It could be treated just as

grades 13 - 16. There are enough folks out there who are smart enough to be able to teach college level courses. And college professors aren't paid all that well, for their knowledge and work, anyway.

And even if you don't think a public education at the bachelor's level is doable, a public education at the associates level is *absolutely* doable.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. Associates level?

I don't know the term, I'm ashamed to say - here in the UK we have universal education up to 16 (GCSE standard), then universally available free education up to 18 (A-level) from which only a few people opt out, and then university education, the lowest level of which is a batchelors degree, taking three years, which something like 20-30% of the population take, and which is partially but not wholely government-subsidised, IIRC.

You *can* go on teaching people as cheaply as you like, but if you want an appreciable fraction of them to learn material worthy of being called a BA you need to spend a fair amount of money on it, especially in subjects like the sciences and engineering. It's better to teach some people well than everyone badly, especially because most of them are then going to *have* to go on into jobs which don't use what they've learned.

[w4rma]

57. Here in America it's 12 years of grade school, available publically.

So that is your High School diploma. Everything after that you must pay for yourself:

2 years for an associate's degree.
2 more for a bachelor's degree.
Then of course there is the master's degree and doctorate degree which, for these two degrees, I'll assume is the same over there.

[Nikia]

69. I feel both ways about this

On one hand, I think that equal oppurtunity for all is important. On the otherhand, I think that aside from a few fields, there are aleady too many college graduates for jobs requiring a college education. Sure there is intrinsic value of higher education, but it does not automatically promote students to a higher class. The more universal college education becomes the worse off those who don't go become and the less it guarentees a midlle class lifestyle. I regularly see job boards advertising jobs, in which the posting requests are even requires a 4 year degree, and pay less than $12/hour. Some of these are dead end jobs within the company. I went to an interview for one in which they said that they did not promote people in the position that I was applying for and this was a big company with potentially a lot of room for promotion.

[BlooInBloo]

45. lol! You tried, but failed to disagree with what I said.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Universities try to attract best students shock horror!

There *is* a massive inequality in American education, but it's that poor people often don't receive decent schooling, not that universities don't accept them once they haven't done.

The best way to get more students from poor families into universities is to spend more money on school education, especially targetting it at poorer areas and failing schools, not to blame the universities for fulfilling their mandate, or demand that they subsidise inferior students in preference to superior ones.

[ComerPerro]

30. when I read your subject line, it appeared as though

more "richer" students were getting aid. That, I am ok with, as long as we can afford it. Sometimes, what people classify as rich here isn't exactly that well off. Its comfortable, but still a lost job or medical disaster away from bankruptcy.

According to the article, though, it looks like they are actually getting more grant money than lower income kids. There really is no excuse for that.

And I don't think that the government should suppliment the very wealthy sending their kids to private universities. I think if the family is shown (not just in their formulas, but realisticly) to be able to afford a state University, then they shouldn't get any aid or grants to send their kid to private schools. There are needier people.

[misternormal]

32. 2005-06 College Costs...

...Keep Rising Prices in Perspective

There's no escaping the fact that college costs are rising. According to recently released reports from the College Board, most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $112 to $1,190 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college.

But, there is good news. There is more financial aid available than ever before—over $129 billion. And, despite all of these college cost increases, a college education remains an affordable choice for most families.

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. When the financial aid comes in the form of loans

that is NOT financial aid - it is inflicting an overwhelming debt burden on the nation's young.

Why are we turning out so few mathmaticians? Because math doesn't pay - how are you going to pay back the massive student loans? So instead you go for the MBA, and hope for a fat paycheck right out of school.

A poster above claimed that because of endowments most schools could exist without charging any tuition whatsoever - if that is so, the effect of that would be to not winnow out the poor. That's why tuitions are so high, and rising -- to keep higher education in the hands of the wealthy.

It also contributes to the dumbing down of the population, because (with all deliberate offense to MBAs) those business degrees teach nothing about being a well-rounded individual. They are just a high-pay jobs program. Get an MBA and you can still be an idiot who has never read Camus or Shakespeare. Liberal Arts education is falling by the wayside as the wealthy get their business and law degrees and the poor go to tech schools - but who needs to understand history or literature or those other silly humanities?

This country cannot exist as a two-tiered economic system. We had that a hundred years ago, and it ended up just short of revolution in the streets. But for FDR there would have been a second civil war, and he stopped it by reining in the power of the economic elite - you know, the people who could afford to send their children to college at the turn of the century.

[Celebration]

34. funding

There is competition among colleges for the best students, and yes, that includes price competition. Really great students from any level of income families can get a free ride, particularly if they are willing to go to a school one step down from the highest level ones who would accept them. Private colleges at full tuition are really expensive and make a sizeable dent in the finances of probably 99% of families.

These scholarships are funded by private donations that are earmarked for merit based scholarships. I just don't know what anyone can do about it. I also think it is a big incentive for high school kids to try to achieve, so overall I think they are a good idea. There is still money earmarked for students based on need. It is just that this pool of funds has not increased as fast as merit based scholarships--due to many factors--competition among universities, wishes of donors, etc.

[Initech]

36. So why do rich kids get more money? I dont understand that.

[Nikia]

67. I think merit based scholarships are more the issue

For example, if a private or state college that has almost open admissions and generally attracts below average college applicants offers a $10,000 per year scholarship to any student who scores at or above the 90th percentile for SAT or ACT, the recipeient is more likely to be richer than poorer because richer students, statistically score higher on these tests. In reality, the recipient might be from a family that makes $20,000 per year (or less) or from a family that makes $200,000 per year (or more). The student that is from a family that makes $20,000 might really need the scholarship in order to attend college. The student from the $200,000 family might see the scholarship as a good savings and elect to go to that college rather than a better academic school that didn't other the scholarship but would not suffer financial hardship by paying the extra $10,000 per year. I suspect that really wealthy families aren't necessarily attracted by a scholarship from a college that isn't as good academically. The main problem with merit scholarships is when the school gives less money for financial need scholarships. As in the example of the poorer student, the poor student with good academic achievement might get the academic scholarship and be able to attend college. If the poor student was average academically compared to the rest of the student body, the student might not be able to attend. The richer student would probably be able to attend regardless of the students academic ability provided that they meet admissions requirements for the school.

[GirlAlex]

70. The article is confusing

While pell grants are needs based, I think the authors lumped scholarship and financial aid together which is not very accurate.

One of my teachers recommended me for a scholarship from his almera mata even though I had no interest in attending.

They came back with a nice package, even though my parents can afford to pay the full tuition. You are correct that students of well-off families do not choose schools based on whomever offers them the best package, but if a university I am planning to attend anyways is going to offer me a scholarship, I'm not going to turn it down.

I believe it's fair from the school's perspective - they are competing for the best students just as the best students are competing to get into the best schools, and merit scholarships are just as important as needs-based scholarships as they reward academic excellence which should be a priority for all schools.

[lady lib]

40. We have a daughter who is a junior in high school.

Her academic record is good enough to make her a serious candidate for any of the highly competitive schools. She has worked extraordinarily hard and has earned the right to attend one of these schools if she chooses (IMO). Unfortunately, the current situation is that the top tier schools are only available to the wealthy (who can afford 45,000+ per year) and to the lower income brackets (who are given free tuition if their family's income qualifies). The middle and upper middle class students are effectively shut out unless they want to take on enormous debt. This situation has to be rectified somehow.

[KamaAina]

63. Yale and most other Ivies will meet a student's demonstrated need

how the heck do you think I got through there?

[lady lib]

65. Meeting a student's demonstrated need

doesn't mean that the student won't be left with huge loans - right? We went through the FAFSA form online to get some idea of where we would be at, and it said we our portion was $45,000 per year! We're not wealthy people and can't even think about paying that kind of money. The plan is to see where our daughter gets in and see what kind of a package she's offered. Then take it from there. If it's out of reach she'll go to one of our state schools (and get an excellent education).

[Nikia]

68. I think that the article is talking about people in your situation

You might find your academically achieving daughter's tuition at a private college an economic hardship for your lifestyle. The less academically prestigious colleges might offer merit based scholarships on some level to reduce that tuition to make it more affordable.
The poorer students that I think it is talking about would not be expected, according to the FAFSA forms to contribute $45,000 per year because they do not even make this much money per year.
I admit that during my college years, I felt bad for the middle class students who worked a lot during the school year and 2 full time jobs during the school year while us poor students generally could make books and living expenses under 10 hours per week during the school year. On the otherhand, it was nice to be able to eat name brand cereal and different things at each meal in the dining hall, which is something I don't think that they were as appreciative of.
In full discolsure, my family has gone through good times and bad times economically and is probably socially middle class. I have both poor and privleged stories. It was a bad time econimically for my family when I was in high school and college though and I qualified for reduced lunches in later high school and a high percentage of aid in college. Six years after graduation, I am half way through paying off my subsidized loans.

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. This is so wrong.

[sable302]

46. Probably because

college is getting so expensive that even the rich students can't afford it anymore.

They probably also want to attract the students that can afford to pay something, thus providing more moola for the school in the long run.

There must be some formula out there somewhere that says that giving aid to richer students gets more rich students to go to your school thus providing more money for the school.

Just a top of my head guess, though. No hard facts here.

[datasuspect]

48. shit, let's close off any opportunities to transcend social class

might as well get a monarch too so they can start handing out royal titles.

[sable302]

49. my kid's kindergarden got cancelled - here's the reason

They had 22 kids for the kindergarden (full-day). In order to go ahead with it, they needed 16 of the kids to be able to pay $300 per month. MOst of the kids, however, were from poorer families and not only couldn't pay the fee, but qualified for free lunch and all. In the end, only 8 students (mine included)were from families who didn't qualify for free lunch and who could pay the fee, so they canceled the kindergarden for everybody.

What gets me, though, was that the eight families who could pay were offered places for their kids in a much sought-after alternative kindergarden thet meets in the same building(again for a monthly $300 fee) so my kid will be fine.

But the neighborhood was just too poor for a neighborhood kindergarden, so I guess the poor kids get to look around for a place elsewhere or just come back next year for first grade.


I think it's the same sort of thing. Using money to attract more money, lifts all boats, except for the folks locked out of the system.

[datasuspect]

50. when i was kid

i just sorta took kindergarten for granted.

[sable302]

51. I was never required

So I guess we shouldn't take it for granted. We still have to fight to get opportunity for everybody, not succumb to this money attracts money BS.

[Nikia]

54. Merit based aid can benefit the poor too

I know statistically that the rich do better on test scores and academically but many rich students do not do well academically and many poor students do well academically. I think sometimes that merit based scholarships do provide some incentive for poorer students to do well in high school. It can also make college more affordable for students who might have trouble affording tuition by the institutional formula, which includes many middle class students.
There are options for poor students who do well. The issue here is poor students who don't do as well. Students, rich and poor, who don't do as well academically are already excluded from many colleges and universities. The rich students do have more options regardless of academic performance though because their parents can afford college without aid. If the rich students who do well, take aid away from poor students who don't do as well, I can see how that can be a problem.
It is a college's decision to give merit based scholarships, however. It does also help good students afford college who might not otherwise.

[Kat45]

59. They don't even let many kids from low income families in any more.

I believe that needs-blind admissions are a thing of the distant past.

[laureloak]

60. T hey deserve it

if they have the grades and test scores.

[MissB]

61. That is just wrong on so many levels.

[KamaAina]

64. John Edwards must be going through the roof

this is a perfect illustration of his core message.