Who should get the good financial aid? IHE article

[polly_mer]

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/02/09/higher-ed-needs-new-federal-regulation-limits-merit-aid-opinion

In blunt terms, should we ensure that the good, academically prepared students get scholarships or should we focus primarily on inability to pay and ignore whether those folks are ready for college?

[marshwiggle]

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/02/09/higher-ed-needs-new-federal-regulation-limits-merit-aid-opinion

In blunt terms, should we ensure that the good, academically prepared students get scholarships or should we focus primarily on inability to pay and ignore whether those folks are ready for college?

I have to confess the whole "discount rate" idea in the US is kind of puzzling, but I can't see how having fewer or smaller scholarships is in any way a good thing.

[dismalist]

What is wanted by the author is a government enforced cartel which would allow charging higher prices to the well qualified who are able to pay. This is nothing more than self interested pleading for an off-budget subsidy.

Lets force airlines to bar the rich from purchasing discounted tickets!

By what right?

[polly_mer]

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/02/09/higher-ed-needs-new-federal-regulation-limits-merit-aid-opinion

In blunt terms, should we ensure that the good, academically prepared students get scholarships or should we focus primarily on inability to pay and ignore whether those folks are ready for college?

I have to confess the whole "discount rate" idea in the US is kind of puzzling, but I can't see how having fewer or smaller scholarships is in any way a good thing.

The argument is giving financial aid based mostly on school-determined financial need (or in other words based on what the school thinks the family can pay) will result in more aspiring students who are poor getting to go to college for a broader array of colleges.  Overall, the money to students would likely increase...until there is no money for anyone at a given institution because the cost for more affluent students isn't worth the value of the degree.  As one parent told Super Dinky's financial aid director, yes, SD and the competitor school are now the same cost out of pocket, but SD isn't worth that much money.

In many parts of the world, the higher ed system is based on allocating the number of student slots able to be provided to a subset of aspiring students who will most benefit society.

The US has many goals for higher ed, some of which conflict with each other during resource allocation.

[kaysixteen]

When talking about 'merit'-based aid, one might perhaps want to define 'merit'... i.e.,

1) is the ability to toss a football on a tight spiral 60 yards worthy of tuition 'merit'?
2) if one's parents can spent $4k+ on private college board tutoring services, does your improved scores on such tests indicate superior 'merit'?
3) You get the idea here

Now, it is obvious that legal policies that would restrict colleges' ability to offer merit aid, however one might want to define 'merit', would lead to an increase in poorer students attending, and these students' tuitions would be increasingly underwritten by the wealthy, but this would be something that would help make our higher ed system more egalitarian, and work against the ongoing trend to have social class stratification fixed by accidents of birth, which of course are more or less the opposite of 'merit'.  That said, this could clearly also be done without just allowing any poorer kid, regardless of his fittedness for college study, to attend-- doing this would only require a bit of effort and the will to do so.

[marshwiggle]

Now, it is obvious that legal policies that would restrict colleges' ability to offer merit aid, however one might want to define 'merit', would lead to an increase in poorer students attending, and these students' tuitions would be increasingly underwritten by the wealthy, but this would be something that would help make our higher ed system more egalitarian, and work against the ongoing trend to have social class stratification fixed by accidents of birth, which of course are more or less the opposite of 'merit'.  That said, this could clearly also be done without just allowing any poorer kid, regardless of his fittedness for college study, to attend-- doing this would only require a bit of effort and the will to do so.

This is the issue. How "egalitarian" is it if lots of kids from bad schools who are unprepared are let in and then fail out? What's the point? The attrition rates for those students will reflect the inequity, which would only be hidden in the admission process.

[polly_mer]

I can make a solid case for why college attendance should be based on personal academic ability and personal demonstrated interest in education, not family's ability to pay.  That's real.merit financial aid.  The athletic scholarships are popular targets, but that's not what people who know the data worry about.

I have not yet encountered a compelling argument in favor of higher ed for all, especially with such glaring failures at k-12.  We have decades of research on how true education requires people who.want to learn, that amount of formal education is not directly correlated with anything else of value beyond basic literacy, and much damage is done by harping on the wrong metrics.

I sigh heavily every time I see people trying to solve the wrong problem and being really vocal about their virtue in wasting resources that could solve a related problem.

[ciao_yall]

I can make a solid case for why college attendance should be based on personal academic ability and personal demonstrated interest in education, not family's ability to pay.  That's real.merit financial aid.  The athletic scholarships are popular targets, but that's not what people who know the data worry about.

I have not yet encountered a compelling argument in favor of higher ed for all, especially with such glaring failures at k-12.  We have decades of research on how true education requires people who.want to learn, that amount of formal education is not directly correlated with anything else of value beyond basic literacy, and much damage is done by harping on the wrong metrics.

I sigh heavily every time I see people trying to solve the wrong problem and being really vocal about their virtue in wasting resources that could solve a related problem.

Because people (taxpayers) don't want to invest in K-12 in low-income (not their children's) school districts.

[marshwiggle]

I can make a solid case for why college attendance should be based on personal academic ability and personal demonstrated interest in education, not family's ability to pay.  That's real.merit financial aid.  The athletic scholarships are popular targets, but that's not what people who know the data worry about.

I have not yet encountered a compelling argument in favor of higher ed for all, especially with such glaring failures at k-12.  We have decades of research on how true education requires people who.want to learn, that amount of formal education is not directly correlated with anything else of value beyond basic literacy, and much damage is done by harping on the wrong metrics.

I sigh heavily every time I see people trying to solve the wrong problem and being really vocal about their virtue in wasting resources that could solve a related problem.

Because people (taxpayers) don't want to invest in K-12 in low-income (not their children's) school districts.

But that isn't solved by just letting all kinds of unprepared students into post-secondary institutions where they'll just fail.

[TreadingLife]

Now, it is obvious that legal policies that would restrict colleges' ability to offer merit aid, however one might want to define 'merit', would lead to an increase in poorer students attending, and these students' tuitions would be increasingly underwritten by the wealthy, but this would be something that would help make our higher ed system more egalitarian, and work against the ongoing trend to have social class stratification fixed by accidents of birth, which of course are more or less the opposite of 'merit'.  That said, this could clearly also be done without just allowing any poorer kid, regardless of his fittedness for college study, to attend-- doing this would only require a bit of effort and the will to do so.

This is the issue. How "egalitarian" is it if lots of kids from bad schools who are unprepared are let in and then fail out? What's the point? The attrition rates for those students will reflect the inequity, which would only be hidden in the admission process.

I taught in grad school at an institution that had a EOP "Talent Development" undergrad admissions program (mid 2000s). That program effectively admitted weak students (who were often poorer students) and the institution patted themselves on the back for "letting in the kid from across the tracks" without providing much emotional and academic support to bridge the gaps in preparation and support that first-gen/weaker/poorer students face.

One of the students in that program came into my class very frustrated after an exam in another class and exclaimed "See, this is why people like me don't belong in college. My friends were right." 

I was so devastated to hear this. To this day it still bothers me. I tried to calm her down and undo that negative talk, but a lot of the damage was already done.

Truly, what is the point. We are not advancing equality, and might be directly undermining it, if we put students on a path destined for academic failure, and we rub salt into that wound by saddling them with debt from the classes that led nowhere.

[apl68]

Now, it is obvious that legal policies that would restrict colleges' ability to offer merit aid, however one might want to define 'merit', would lead to an increase in poorer students attending, and these students' tuitions would be increasingly underwritten by the wealthy, but this would be something that would help make our higher ed system more egalitarian, and work against the ongoing trend to have social class stratification fixed by accidents of birth, which of course are more or less the opposite of 'merit'.  That said, this could clearly also be done without just allowing any poorer kid, regardless of his fittedness for college study, to attend-- doing this would only require a bit of effort and the will to do so.

This is the issue. How "egalitarian" is it if lots of kids from bad schools who are unprepared are let in and then fail out? What's the point? The attrition rates for those students will reflect the inequity, which would only be hidden in the admission process.

I taught in grad school at an institution that had a EOP "Talent Development" undergrad admissions program (mid 2000s). That program effectively admitted weak students (who were often poorer students) and the institution patted themselves on the back for "letting in the kid from across the tracks" without providing much emotional and academic support to bridge the gaps in preparation and support that first-gen/weaker/poorer students face.

One of the students in that program came into my class very frustrated after an exam in another class and exclaimed "See, this is why people like me don't belong in college. My friends were right." 

I was so devastated to hear this. To this day it still bothers me. I tried to calm her down and undo that negative talk, but a lot of the damage was already done.

Truly, what is the point. We are not advancing equality, and might be directly undermining it, if we put students on a path destined for academic failure, and we rub salt into that wound by saddling them with debt from the classes that led nowhere.

This is a part of why people in areas with low rates of college education often have a negative view of college.  Many of them know somebody who has been encouraged to attempt college without sufficient preparation or support, and has ended up with nothing to show for it but debt and wasted time.  Our local high school guidance counselor sometimes dissuades students from trying to go to college, because he knows it is so unlikely to work for them.

[marshwiggle]

Truly, what is the point. We are not advancing equality, and might be directly undermining it, if we put students on a path destined for academic failure, and we rub salt into that wound by saddling them with debt from the classes that led nowhere.

This is a part of why people in areas with low rates of college education often have a negative view of college.  Many of them know somebody who has been encouraged to attempt college without sufficient preparation or support, and has ended up with nothing to show for it but debt and wasted time.  Our local high school guidance counselor sometimes dissuades students from trying to go to college, because he knows it is so unlikely to work for them.

Among first year students, probably the top quartile will do OK without any special help or services. The 2nd and 3rd quartiles will probably get some benefit from tutoring centres, writing centres, study skills workshops, etc.. But the bottom quartile are likely to struggle even with all that help, several will drop out eventually and the ones who gradaute will probably mostly squeek through. Adding more to that bottom quartile, especially if they're near the bottom of that, isn't doing them any favours.

[Hibush]

Truly, what is the point. We are not advancing equality, and might be directly undermining it, if we put students on a path destined for academic failure, and we rub salt into that wound by saddling them with debt from the classes that led nowhere.

This is a part of why people in areas with low rates of college education often have a negative view of college.  Many of them know somebody who has been encouraged to attempt college without sufficient preparation or support, and has ended up with nothing to show for it but debt and wasted time.  Our local high school guidance counselor sometimes dissuades students from trying to go to college, because he knows it is so unlikely to work for them.

Among first year students, probably the top quartile will do OK without any special help or services. The 2nd and 3rd quartiles will probably get some benefit from tutoring centres, writing centres, study skills workshops, etc.. But the bottom quartile are likely to struggle even with all that help, several will drop out eventually and the ones who gradaute will probably mostly squeek through. Adding more to that bottom quartile, especially if they're near the bottom of that, isn't doing them any favours.

A good program, consistent with this reasoning, would admit students who are near the middle academically but near the bottom financially and then provide both the financial aid to cover tuition and any extra student services needed for them to perform at their potential.

[marshwiggle]

Among first year students, probably the top quartile will do OK without any special help or services. The 2nd and 3rd quartiles will probably get some benefit from tutoring centres, writing centres, study skills workshops, etc.. But the bottom quartile are likely to struggle even with all that help, several will drop out eventually and the ones who gradaute will probably mostly squeek through. Adding more to that bottom quartile, especially if they're near the bottom of that, isn't doing them any favours.

A good program, consistent with this reasoning, would admit students who are near the middle academically but near the bottom financially and then provide both the financial aid to cover tuition and any extra student services needed for them to perform at their potential.

What would you call that? "Semi-merit"? It's sort-of like a scholarship because grades matter a bit, but sort-of like a subsidy since need matters as well.

[Hibush]

Among first year students, probably the top quartile will do OK without any special help or services. The 2nd and 3rd quartiles will probably get some benefit from tutoring centres, writing centres, study skills workshops, etc.. But the bottom quartile are likely to struggle even with all that help, several will drop out eventually and the ones who gradaute will probably mostly squeek through. Adding more to that bottom quartile, especially if they're near the bottom of that, isn't doing them any favours.

A good program, consistent with this reasoning, would admit students who are near the middle academically but near the bottom financially and then provide both the financial aid to cover tuition and any extra student services needed for them to perform at their potential.

What would you call that? "Semi-merit"? It's sort-of like a scholarship because grades matter a bit, but sort-of like a subsidy since need matters as well.

Depends on the goal of the institution offering the scholarship. I bet the United Negro College Fund has a lot of merit criteria besides grades. Pomona College and Cal Poly Pomona would have different criteria for merit from each other and from UNCF.