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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly, and these policies are not compatible with cutting deals to lure someone who does have ability to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. The only people who pay more in the absence of “merit” aid are UMC and wealthy kids who can use their test scores and expensive extracurriculars to game the system. Need based aid is much more equitable than merit aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? They obviously think that they are getting good students, and don't feel the need to compete with the other schools. There are enough capable, qualified, "top" students to fill dozens of colleges; they don't need to chase the same students as every other school. And no sane person puts that much weight on "yield" and USNWR rankings.

Your post reveal a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge about highly selective college admissions. A lot of time, effort, and money is spent by individual schools in an effort to predict yield.

LACs that offer multiple ED rounds typically do so in order to increase yield rates and because they cannot compete with other schools.

You think that schools that offer ED2 "cannot compete?" So, Middlebury, Vanderbilt, Pomona, Washington University, Bowdon can't compete? Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? They obviously think that they are getting good students, and don't feel the need to compete with the other schools. There are enough capable, qualified, "top" students to fill dozens of colleges; they don't need to chase the same students as every other school. And no sane person puts that much weight on "yield" and USNWR rankings.

Your post reveal a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge about highly selective college admissions. A lot of time, effort, and money is spent by individual schools in an effort to predict yield.

LACs that offer multiple ED rounds typically do so in order to increase yield rates and because they cannot compete with other schools.

You think that schools that offer ED2 "cannot compete?" So, Middlebury, Vanderbilt, Pomona, Washington University, Bowdon can't compete? Interesting.

And Johns Hopkins and University of Chicago.

Maybe these schools are just trying to do what they say they want to do -- identify the students for whom they are the first or second choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? They obviously think that they are getting good students, and don't feel the need to compete with the other schools. There are enough capable, qualified, "top" students to fill dozens of colleges; they don't need to chase the same students as every other school. And no sane person puts that much weight on "yield" and USNWR rankings.

Your post reveal a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge about highly selective college admissions. A lot of time, effort, and money is spent by individual schools in an effort to predict yield.

LACs that offer multiple ED rounds typically do so in order to increase yield rates and because they cannot compete with other schools.

You think that schools that offer ED2 "cannot compete?" So, Middlebury, Vanderbilt, Pomona, Washington University, Bowdon can't compete? Interesting.

And Johns Hopkins and University of Chicago.

Maybe these schools are just trying to do what they say they want to do -- identify the students for whom they are the first or second choice.

ED2= elite safeties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? They obviously think that they are getting good students, and don't feel the need to compete with the other schools. There are enough capable, qualified, "top" students to fill dozens of colleges; they don't need to chase the same students as every other school. And no sane person puts that much weight on "yield" and USNWR rankings.

Your post reveal a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge about highly selective college admissions. A lot of time, effort, and money is spent by individual schools in an effort to predict yield.

LACs that offer multiple ED rounds typically do so in order to increase yield rates and because they cannot compete with other schools.

You think that schools that offer ED2 "cannot compete?" So, Middlebury, Vanderbilt, Pomona, Washington University, Bowdon can't compete? Interesting.

I think a lot of these schools have a hard time competing for full-pay humanities and non-economics majors. (In other words: Students who are cheap to educate. No smelly labs.) Maybe ED2 is their way of trawling for those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. The only people who pay more in the absence of “merit” aid are UMC and wealthy kids who can use their test scores and expensive extracurriculars to game the system. Need based aid is much more equitable than merit aid.

It is, offering only need based aid is a goal, and being able offer it to a large percent of the incoming class requires a strong endowment. DC was admitted into a class that was 26% full-pay pre-pandemic at a small school that is not need blind. This year's incoming class is 76% full-pay. That's how they'll recoup pandemic loses. This hasn't hurt their yield or their test scores. The idea that schools need to shop for good test scores from MC families that don't like to pay is naïve. Test scores corelate to wealth, and many schools can fill their class with nothing but UMC/good stat kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. The only people who pay more in the absence of “merit” aid are UMC and wealthy kids who can use their test scores and expensive extracurriculars to game the system. Need based aid is much more equitable than merit aid.

It is, offering only need based aid is a goal, and being able offer it to a large percent of the incoming class requires a strong endowment. DC was admitted into a class that was 26% full-pay pre-pandemic at a small school that is not need blind. This year's incoming class is 76% full-pay. That's how they'll recoup pandemic loses. This hasn't hurt their yield or their test scores. The idea that schools need to shop for good test scores from MC families that don't like to pay is naïve. Test scores corelate to wealth, and many schools can fill their class with nothing but UMC/good stat kids.

They use full-pay students to subsidize the need-based and merit aid programs. If they don't have a "healthy" percentage of full pay, that system becomes unsupportable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. The only people who pay more in the absence of “merit” aid are UMC and wealthy kids who can use their test scores and expensive extracurriculars to game the system. Need based aid is much more equitable than merit aid.

It is, offering only need based aid is a goal, and being able offer it to a large percent of the incoming class requires a strong endowment. DC was admitted into a class that was 26% full-pay pre-pandemic at a small school that is not need blind. This year's incoming class is 76% full-pay. That's how they'll recoup pandemic loses. This hasn't hurt their yield or their test scores. The idea that schools need to shop for good test scores from MC families that don't like to pay is naïve. Test scores corelate to wealth, and many schools can fill their class with nothing but UMC/good stat kids.

They use full-pay students to subsidize the need-based and merit aid programs. If they don't have a "healthy" percentage of full pay, that system becomes unsupportable.

Yes, that's the point, however the healthy percentage was in fact much lower pre-pandemic. Regardless, no one is handing out merit coupons when there are wealthy kids lining up to pay full freight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? They obviously think that they are getting good students, and don't feel the need to compete with the other schools. There are enough capable, qualified, "top" students to fill dozens of colleges; they don't need to chase the same students as every other school. And no sane person puts that much weight on "yield" and USNWR rankings.

Your post reveal a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge about highly selective college admissions. A lot of time, effort, and money is spent by individual schools in an effort to predict yield.

LACs that offer multiple ED rounds typically do so in order to increase yield rates and because they cannot compete with other schools.

You think that schools that offer ED2 "cannot compete?" So, Middlebury, Vanderbilt, Pomona, Washington University, Bowdon can't compete? Interesting.

And Johns Hopkins and University of Chicago.

Maybe these schools are just trying to do what they say they want to do -- identify the students for whom they are the first or second choice.

ED2= elite safeties.

Such an idiotic comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? They obviously think that they are getting good students, and don't feel the need to compete with the other schools. There are enough capable, qualified, "top" students to fill dozens of colleges; they don't need to chase the same students as every other school. And no sane person puts that much weight on "yield" and USNWR rankings.

Your post reveal a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge about highly selective college admissions. A lot of time, effort, and money is spent by individual schools in an effort to predict yield.

LACs that offer multiple ED rounds typically do so in order to increase yield rates and because they cannot compete with other schools.

You think that schools that offer ED2 "cannot compete?" So, Middlebury, Vanderbilt, Pomona, Washington University, Bowdon can't compete? Interesting.

And Johns Hopkins and University of Chicago.

Maybe these schools are just trying to do what they say they want to do -- identify the students for whom they are the first or second choice.

ED2= elite safeties.

Oxymoron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. The only people who pay more in the absence of “merit” aid are UMC and wealthy kids who can use their test scores and expensive extracurriculars to game the system. Need based aid is much more equitable than merit aid.

It is, offering only need based aid is a goal, and being able offer it to a large percent of the incoming class requires a strong endowment. DC was admitted into a class that was 26% full-pay pre-pandemic at a small school that is not need blind. This year's incoming class is 76% full-pay. That's how they'll recoup pandemic loses. This hasn't hurt their yield or their test scores. The idea that schools need to shop for good test scores from MC families that don't like to pay is naïve. Test scores corelate to wealth, and many schools can fill their class with nothing but UMC/good stat kids.

They use full-pay students to subsidize the need-based and merit aid programs. If they don't have a "healthy" percentage of full pay, that system becomes unsupportable.

Yes, that's the point, however the healthy percentage was in fact much lower pre-pandemic. Regardless, no one is handing out merit coupons when there are wealthy kids lining up to pay full freight.

I always think it is funny when a private school proudly says something like "50% of entering students receive financial aid". That means the remaining 50% is paying full freight.

[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.

They get plenty of wealthy students, giving financial aid makes alumni happy and gets college good reputation. Helping middle class students making college affordable with merit scholarships doesn't serve college's interest.

[Anonymous]

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.

Lots of parents say no and then these students are in worst position than poor because they can't get aid or loans on their own, their options are limited because of parental income they have no control over.

[Anonymous]

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.

Huh? How is it any different than parents who didn't earn and save for college but feel entitled to free money?