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.

+1 from a parent with a student at one of the LACs the OP named in the first post. Very generous need-based financial aid.

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%.

I would not worry about Amherst college. Amherst is doing more than fine.

Anonymous wrote:Why pick on SLACs. The Ivies also do not give merit based aid.

They've been sued for having a price fixing cartel.

There are a couple that do.

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%.

Not sure I get the fixation on yield.

A school could have 100% yield and still not have been the first choice for anyone there.

(Then again, a school could be everyone’s first choice but every alum regrets going there.)

Yield says something but not a lot.

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%.

Anonymous wrote:The answer is always supply and demand. These schools are sellers, not buyers.

You've been reading some Selingo! 😀

The merit award at this tier is getting in. They are generous with need based aid (at least the ones I know).

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.

Because they choose to use that $$$ to welcome students from families with financial need. They have more than enough academically talented students who apply, who can afford to pay, and who want to attend.

The answer is always supply and demand. These schools are sellers, not buyers.

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.

And yet the top LACs tend to average higher alumni giving rates. Hmm. It’s almost as if the extra marketing of larger universities drives more application frenzy among the audience targeted by that marketing, but schools which actually focus on undergraduate experience have alumni more satisfied with their undergraduate experience.

The notion that LACs should redirect funds that currently go either to financial aid for those who actually need it or to resources the entire campus benefits from is pretty antithetical to most LACs. That might make sense for Grinnell, which per student is one of the 10 best endowed institutions and located in an area with a much lower cost of living than any of the other 10, and which has to deal with one of the least accessible locations if coming from a coast. But they are an outlier (and a great school.)

Incidentally, when you look at the score range for top LACs vs top unis, one thing you might notice is the top quartile is pretty consistent across the two groups. It’s really with the lower quartile the difference emerges. Yes that can be used as a criticism of a difference in average preparation of incoming students. Some might argue inputs matter less than outputs, and for the top students across the two groups, there’s little difference anyway, and the original comment was about “the best students.”

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.

Anonymous wrote:Why pick on SLACs. The Ivies also do not give merit based aid.

It's not picking, it's just a "why not" kind of question. The Ivies have the highest yields of non-specialized/nationally reaching institutions and consistently enroll classes where 95%+ of students ranked in the top decile of HS and the average SAT/ACT is above 1500/34. Outside of maybe Williams and Pomona (based on their common data sets), these LACs don't have student bodies as statistically strong.

most people competing to get in are smart - why subsidize your child when that is the minimum bar to entry at these schools