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

[Anonymous]

OP sounds entitled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were happy to allow Grinnell to “buy” our daughter. She turned down Carleton and Williams & Mary for a generous merit aid award even though our income at the time was in the high six figures and we easily could have afforded any college she wanted. It helped that she preferred Grinnell anyway. Man, what a bargain.

Is the political climate there tolerant? I always lump it in with Oberlin but perhaps I’m wrong.
My child is interested in Grinnell. Child has some reservations about the isolation factor. Is there a shuttle to campus from the airport? Is the closest major medical centre in Des Moines?

There is a hospital in town and University of Iowa medical center is an hour away.

It is not like Oberlin. Has a different feel.

Would like to read your impression of each school (Grinnell & Oberlin) since you sense a "different feel" from these seemingly similar schools. Thanks in advance !

Oberlin is a bit larger (in a noticeable way) and is politically more intense. Students seem more intense. Grinnell has more of a midwestern vibe and Oberlin has a lot of New Yorkers. Grinnell is very focused on community. Oberlin is a good school but IMHO they have different vibes.

I don’t want to out myself but we are very familiar with both schools.

I've always kind of wondered about this--what Oberlin's draw is for NY - esp NYC-- kids? I think it's an excellent school but it's definitely in the middle of nowhere. The allure for New Yorkers has been true for decades too. I think the kids at Oberlin are artsier and more intense than Grinnell. For all the talk about political correctness, that doesn't strike me as much about its vibe that much more than any other LAC. Both have very smart kids--but Grinnell seems more earnest smart kids rather than urbane smart kids. The international population feels larger at Grinnell--in part because it is larger, but also because Grinnell is about half the size of Oberlin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were happy to allow Grinnell to “buy” our daughter. She turned down Carleton and Williams & Mary for a generous merit aid award even though our income at the time was in the high six figures and we easily could have afforded any college she wanted. It helped that she preferred Grinnell anyway. Man, what a bargain.

Is the political climate there tolerant? I always lump it in with Oberlin but perhaps I’m wrong.
My child is interested in Grinnell. Child has some reservations about the isolation factor. Is there a shuttle to campus from the airport? Is the closest major medical centre in Des Moines?

There is a hospital in town and University of Iowa medical center is an hour away.

It is not like Oberlin. Has a different feel.

Would like to read your impression of each school (Grinnell & Oberlin) since you sense a "different feel" from these seemingly similar schools. Thanks in advance !

Oberlin is a bit larger (in a noticeable way) and is politically more intense. Students seem more intense. Grinnell has more of a midwestern vibe and Oberlin has a lot of New Yorkers. Grinnell is very focused on community. Oberlin is a good school but IMHO they have different vibes.

I don’t want to out myself but we are very familiar with both schools.

I've always kind of wondered about this--what Oberlin's draw is for NY - esp NYC-- kids? I think it's an excellent school but it's definitely in the middle of nowhere. The allure for New Yorkers has been true for decades too. I think the kids at Oberlin are artsier and more intense than Grinnell. For all the talk about political correctness, that doesn't strike me as much about its vibe that much more than any other LAC. Both have very smart kids--but Grinnell seems more earnest smart kids rather than urbane smart kids. The international population feels larger at Grinnell--in part because it is larger, but also because Grinnell is about half the size of Oberlin.

PP here and I agree with your characterization of earnest smart v. urbane smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“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.‘

+2

Sounds like people making more than 250k a year talking. Some of us earn less and are coming in at 75k EFCs. Don’t side with $1b endowed institutions over working families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“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.‘

+2

Sounds like people making more than 250k a year talking. Some of us earn less and are coming in at 75k EFCs. Don’t side with $1b endowed institutions over working families.

Yep. And it's the colleges that have come up with this merit aid game instead of just straight-forward pricing. It's not entitlement to try to figure out the best cost for college in an environment where most colleges won't just tell you what it costs. While the ones that do tell you expect most to pay $70k+

[Anonymous]

Elite LACs and the top universities mentioned really shouldn't use much money for "merit" aid (I intentionally use quotes there). From an SAT/ACT (even if all required them, which they don't) and high class rank perspective, there are more than enough great students to go around for all of these schools. Filtering through to try to find real differences in "merit" gets so subjective it is silly, especially when it results in a school having to give money to someone who doesn't need it or who the school honestly can replace very easily with another terrific student.

The trend in elite school circles, which I support, is for more aid to be given to students with demonstrated need (like Bloomberg's $1.8 billion for financial aid at Hopkins).

[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.

What does a HYPMS level candidate look like?

All of these schools are already attracting many of the "best and brightest" (and those with ED are getting more of them to apply in this binding way too). As many of the parents have seen, top schools including HYPMS can't even agree on admissions decisions for such great applicant pools.

The trend at the best schools regardless of size has moved away from merit aid (which isn't to say there isn't still a fair amount of it). Duke, for example, has mostly older and fully endowed merit based scholarship programs. Even still, several of them now factor in need or are limited to people who are the first in their families to attend college: https://ousf.duke.edu/merit-scholarships-incoming-first-year-students/

[Anonymous]

My kids are not competitive for these T20 type schools so I have no skin in this game. But it does seem ridiculous that these schools with massive endowments charge anyone $70k+. Their endowments are so huge that they really don't need to charge tuition at all. And the current approach leads to a student body with massive SES disparity. I heard an interview recently with the head of admissions at U of Rochester who said they don't limit aid to need-only for that reason. They want to have a student body from a wider range of SES levels, not just the wealthy and the poor.

[Anonymous]

Many of the midwestern LACs seem to offer good merit aid. I assume the New England ones don’t because they get high enough applicants and enrolled students without it. Supply and demand.

[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.

The answer is obvious, OP.

They don't want merit.

They want...whatever is the latest "balance" fad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds entitled

OP sounds extremely entitled!

The constant complaining about "merit" aid vs. need based aid is annoying. Most LACS and private universities have a sticker price and then the real price. Even without "merit" aid, they provide decent financial aid packages to make their college affordable to families. Kids who come from working class or poor backgrounds will get as much or more aid from need based aid as they would from "merit" aid.

"Merit" aid frequently benefits UMC kids whose families don't want to pay their fair share of tuition. Kids from families who have had every advantage in life to get them ready for college then go begging for "merit" aid in order to continue to game the system to their advantage.

[Anonymous]

Folks, the reason most of the schools listed (as well as Ivies, UVA, Georgetown, ND) don’t offer merit aid is that they are need-blind/meet-full-need. That means that they award aid exclusively based on need; it’s a policy designed to ensure that ability to pay does not affect admissions decisions and that students who are admitted are given the financial resources to attend.

How this is managed, especially the meet-full-need part, varies significantly based on how wealthy the school is. Most (all?) of the Ivies have eliminated loans from financial aid packages. So has Amherst, I believe. Others with lower endowments (e.g. Georgetown) have not.

But the point is that most of the top-rated national universities and SLACs have adopted this policy, which explains why they don’t offer merit scholarships. It’s also true, of course, that these are schools that mostly don’t need to offer money to compete for students; instead, they’ve decided to admit who they consider to be the best students for their institution regardless of financial need and then make sure that they are offered the resources necessary to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds entitled

OP sounds extremely entitled!

The constant complaining about "merit" aid vs. need based aid is annoying. Most LACS and private universities have a sticker price and then the real price. Even without "merit" aid, they provide decent financial aid packages to make their college affordable to families. Kids who come from working class or poor backgrounds will get as much or more aid from need based aid as they would from "merit" aid.

"Merit" aid frequently benefits UMC kids whose families don't want to pay their fair share of tuition. Kids from families who have had every advantage in life to get them ready for college then go begging for "merit" aid in order to continue to game the system to their advantage.

You are so far out of touch you don’t even know what UMC class is. The UMC people in your privileged brain are upper income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sounds entitled

OP sounds extremely entitled!

The constant complaining about "merit" aid vs. need based aid is annoying. Most LACS and private universities have a sticker price and then the real price. Even without "merit" aid, they provide decent financial aid packages to make their college affordable to families. Kids who come from working class or poor backgrounds will get as much or more aid from need based aid as they would from "merit" aid.

"Merit" aid frequently benefits UMC kids whose families don't want to pay their fair share of tuition. Kids from families who have had every advantage in life to get them ready for college then go begging for "merit" aid in order to continue to game the system to their advantage.

+1

[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.

The answer is obvious, OP.

They don't want merit.

They want...whatever is the latest "balance" fad.

Or, as many posters have pointed out, they have more than enough students with extremely enough merit that they don't need to reward the ones with 10 points higher on an exam or whatever with money. They are consistently attracting their pick of the top 5% of academic achievement. Trying to squeak out "merit" differences from among those students is a less meaningful exercise than building a class that will help them all grow to make meaningful contributions to society.