Why don't most of the top LACs offer substantial merit scholarships?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Pomona, Wellesley, Middlebury, Colby, Haverford, Vassar, Carleton, Barnard, Hamilton, and Colgate are just some of the best known examples of LACs that have essentially no merit aid, outside of maybe 1 or 2 $2000 national merit scholarship awards a year from alumni restricted funds.

These schools have some of the highest endowments per students of any institution, making it easily attainable to finance a merit scholarship opportunity covering minimum 20K a year and up to a full ride. The first five schools above all have over 1 million dollar per student. Given that they tend to lose cross admits to top universities, why not offer merit aid to attract the best and brightest to their schools? Several universities already do this to lure in HYPMS level candidates: Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, WashU, Emory, and UVA.

They have no trouble attracting the best and the brightest.

They do. Their regular decision yield is dismal. I believe the highest is like 35%. Most are in the 15-25% range. Top universities tend to start at 30% and peak at 80%+.

Their SAT averages aren't as high as the top universities, nor are the percent of their overall class ranking top 10% in HS.

It's rare for students admitted to both a top LAC and a top university to pick the LAC in my experience. Merit aid could make a worthwhile swing.

+1

Yields among the top SLACs are not as impressive as those for top National Universities.

Fairly recent stats show that #2 ranked SLAC Amherst College had a yield of just about 35 % to 37%.

Isn’t that about Johns Hopkins’ yield — and isn’t Williams 52%? Stop throwing around random numbers. Love to hear the 15-25% range top SLACs. Name one. By the way, Amherst does tons or URM outreach, which has the weird effect of reducing yield…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they are attracting the best and brightest through meeting their demonstrated financial need, with need-based scholarships?

You should put your kid through school. If you can afford it, why should someone else be paying your kid's way? The entitlement of those seeking out the best merit deals is so high on this board.

NP. That's BS. These places charge what they can get. Not a matter of someone else picking up the tab. All these schools could charge $50 rather than $80 and they'll be just fine. Ego thing.

Found the UMC merit chaser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They give much more generous financial aid. My guess is that they give as much or more money to students as schools that do provide merit aid, they just choose to allocate it in ways that benefit people who are not you.

Nicely stated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they are attracting the best and brightest through meeting their demonstrated financial need, with need-based scholarships?

You should put your kid through school. If you can afford it, why should someone else be paying your kid's way? The entitlement of those seeking out the best merit deals is so high on this board.

NP. That's BS. These places charge what they can get. Not a matter of someone else picking up the tab. All these schools could charge $50 rather than $80 and they'll be just fine. Ego thing.

Found the UMC merit chaser.

Was it that obvious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Pomona, Wellesley, Middlebury, Colby, Haverford, Vassar, Carleton, Barnard, Hamilton, and Colgate are just some of the best known examples of LACs that have essentially no merit aid, outside of maybe 1 or 2 $2000 national merit scholarship awards a year from alumni restricted funds.

These schools have some of the highest endowments per students of any institution, making it easily attainable to finance a merit scholarship opportunity covering minimum 20K a year and up to a full ride. The first five schools above all have over 1 million dollar per student. Given that they tend to lose cross admits to top universities, why not offer merit aid to attract the best and brightest to their schools? Several universities already do this to lure in HYPMS level candidates: Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, WashU, Emory, and UVA.

I think that you have posed a valid question and that posters have provided reasonable responses.

These SLACs simply do not need to buy students from upper income families. Supply & demand; selling versus buying.

Even tough they do lose applicants in cross-admit battles with elite National Universities, enough students are locked in via binding ED admissions that each school will have plenty of students once need based financial aid is awarded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Pomona, Wellesley, Middlebury, Colby, Haverford, Vassar, Carleton, Barnard, Hamilton, and Colgate are just some of the best known examples of LACs that have essentially no merit aid, outside of maybe 1 or 2 $2000 national merit scholarship awards a year from alumni restricted funds.

These schools have some of the highest endowments per students of any institution, making it easily attainable to finance a merit scholarship opportunity covering minimum 20K a year and up to a full ride. The first five schools above all have over 1 million dollar per student. Given that they tend to lose cross admits to top universities, why not offer merit aid to attract the best and brightest to their schools? Several universities already do this to lure in HYPMS level candidates: Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, WashU, Emory, and UVA.

I think that you have posed a valid question and that posters have provided reasonable responses.

These SLACs simply do not need to buy students from upper income families. Supply & demand; selling versus buying.

Even tough they do lose applicants in cross-admit battles with elite National Universities, enough students are locked in via binding ED admissions that each school will have plenty of students once need based financial aid is awarded.

This. There are plenty of wealthy families willing to pay full freight at the top ranked schools and then they get to feel like they are balancing that out by providing full-need aid to lower income students. It means these schools have a barbell distribution - a lot at the top income tier, some at the bottom and very very few in the middle. So, if you are in that no-need-aid, can't/won't pay full sticker price then you focus on schools that will meet your budget. There are plenty of good schools that fall into that group but you'll need to stop worshiping the USNWR rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Pomona, Wellesley, Middlebury, Colby, Haverford, Vassar, Carleton, Barnard, Hamilton, and Colgate are just some of the best known examples of LACs that have essentially no merit aid, outside of maybe 1 or 2 $2000 national merit scholarship awards a year from alumni restricted funds.

These schools have some of the highest endowments per students of any institution, making it easily attainable to finance a merit scholarship opportunity covering minimum 20K a year and up to a full ride. The first five schools above all have over 1 million dollar per student. Given that they tend to lose cross admits to top universities, why not offer merit aid to attract the best and brightest to their schools? Several universities already do this to lure in HYPMS level candidates: Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, WashU, Emory, and UVA.

They have no trouble attracting the best and the brightest.

They do. Their regular decision yield is dismal. I believe the highest is like 35%. Most are in the 15-25% range. Top universities tend to start at 30% and peak at 80%+.

Their SAT averages aren't as high as the top universities, nor are the percent of their overall class ranking top 10% in HS.

It's rare for students admitted to both a top LAC and a top university to pick the LAC in my experience. Merit aid could make a worthwhile swing.

+1

Yields among the top SLACs are not as impressive as those for top National Universities.

Fairly recent stats show that #2 ranked SLAC Amherst College had a yield of just about 35 % to 37%.

So? That is a metric that is not relevant to anything. Who cares? They get who they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Pomona, Wellesley, Middlebury, Colby, Haverford, Vassar, Carleton, Barnard, Hamilton, and Colgate are just some of the best known examples of LACs that have essentially no merit aid, outside of maybe 1 or 2 $2000 national merit scholarship awards a year from alumni restricted funds.

These schools have some of the highest endowments per students of any institution, making it easily attainable to finance a merit scholarship opportunity covering minimum 20K a year and up to a full ride. The first five schools above all have over 1 million dollar per student. Given that they tend to lose cross admits to top universities, why not offer merit aid to attract the best and brightest to their schools? Several universities already do this to lure in HYPMS level candidates: Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, WashU, Emory, and UVA.

They have no trouble attracting the best and the brightest.

They do. Their regular decision yield is dismal. I believe the highest is like 35%. Most are in the 15-25% range. Top universities tend to start at 30% and peak at 80%+.

Their SAT averages aren't as high as the top universities, nor are the percent of their overall class ranking top 10% in HS.

It's rare for students admitted to both a top LAC and a top university to pick the LAC in my experience. Merit aid could make a worthwhile swing.

But they only need relatively few students so having a high RD yield isn't that much of a problem. And there's not just that much meaningful differences between the quality of students who enroll vs don't. I think they are far more concerned with money to attract and support socioeconomically diverse students. Their need-based aid can be fairly generous too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Pomona, Wellesley, Middlebury, Colby, Haverford, Vassar, Carleton, Barnard, Hamilton, and Colgate are just some of the best known examples of LACs that have essentially no merit aid, outside of maybe 1 or 2 $2000 national merit scholarship awards a year from alumni restricted funds.

These schools have some of the highest endowments per students of any institution, making it easily attainable to finance a merit scholarship opportunity covering minimum 20K a year and up to a full ride. The first five schools above all have over 1 million dollar per student. Given that they tend to lose cross admits to top universities, why not offer merit aid to attract the best and brightest to their schools? Several universities already do this to lure in HYPMS level candidates: Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, WashU, Emory, and UVA.

They have no trouble attracting the best and the brightest.

They do. Their regular decision yield is dismal. I believe the highest is like 35%. Most are in the 15-25% range. Top universities tend to start at 30% and peak at 80%+.

Their SAT averages aren't as high as the top universities, nor are the percent of their overall class ranking top 10% in HS.

It's rare for students admitted to both a top LAC and a top university to pick the LAC in my experience. Merit aid could make a worthwhile swing.

Your focus is incredibly narrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is addressed in todays Daily podcast.

^^^ this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Pomona, Wellesley, Middlebury, Colby, Haverford, Vassar, Carleton, Barnard, Hamilton, and Colgate are just some of the best known examples of LACs that have essentially no merit aid, outside of maybe 1 or 2 $2000 national merit scholarship awards a year from alumni restricted funds.

These schools have some of the highest endowments per students of any institution, making it easily attainable to finance a merit scholarship opportunity covering minimum 20K a year and up to a full ride. The first five schools above all have over 1 million dollar per student. Given that they tend to lose cross admits to top universities, why not offer merit aid to attract the best and brightest to their schools? Several universities already do this to lure in HYPMS level candidates: Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, WashU, Emory, and UVA.

And?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is addressed in todays Daily podcast.

^^^ this.

I found it off putting, especially as they really downplayed how state govs have gutted contributions to their state schools as well as eliminating scholarships to their in-state students attending either state private/public institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is addressed in todays Daily podcast.

^^^ this.

I found it off putting, especially as they really downplayed how state govs have gutted contributions to their state schools as well as eliminating scholarships to their in-state students attending either state private/public institutions.

And they both came across as having no direct experience with FA, even if that may not be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amherst, Williams, Bowdoin, Pomona, Wellesley, Middlebury, Colby, Haverford, Vassar, Carleton, Barnard, Hamilton, and Colgate are just some of the best known examples of LACs that have essentially no merit aid, outside of maybe 1 or 2 $2000 national merit scholarship awards a year from alumni restricted funds.

These schools have some of the highest endowments per students of any institution, making it easily attainable to finance a merit scholarship opportunity covering minimum 20K a year and up to a full ride. The first five schools above all have over 1 million dollar per student. Given that they tend to lose cross admits to top universities, why not offer merit aid to attract the best and brightest to their schools? Several universities already do this to lure in HYPMS level candidates: Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, WashU, Emory, and UVA.

They have no trouble attracting the best and the brightest.

They do. Their regular decision yield is dismal. I believe the highest is like 35%. Most are in the 15-25% range. Top universities tend to start at 30% and peak at 80%+.

Their SAT averages aren't as high as the top universities, nor are the percent of their overall class ranking top 10% in HS.

It's rare for students admitted to both a top LAC and a top university to pick the LAC in my experience. Merit aid could make a worthwhile swing.


Nope. I was on a parent zoom with Colby this evening. Their yield last year was 58% not "in the 15-25%." 85% of enrolled freshmen were cum laude (top 10%) at their high schools. My daughter had a 1530, an unweighted 4.0, and the kind of interesting and unusal leadership opps that schools like. Colby was her first choice and she applied nowhere else.

[Anonymous]

Rd yield not ed imclusive yield. That's the telling metric for how schools are perceived