Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Control the Aid Arms Race

January 5, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The harsh economic climate of the last 18 months has forced colleges and universities across this nation to adjust programs and cut personnel in order to sustain some measure of financial stability. Some of the changes have been dramatic, some, perhaps, even permanent improvements, but for the most part they have not been the kind of fundamental, long-lasting, “game changing” alterations that I believe higher education needs.

Let me offer up one idea that not only represents just such change, but would also be possible in today’s tight economic environment. I am not suggesting any of the obvious candidates: increasing class size, raising the student/faculty ratio, increasing course loads for faculty, or reducing — or even eliminating — student life or athletic commitments. No, there is a much bigger fish to be caught.

Merit aid in this country has become unsustainable madness. Whether it be for academic talent, musical ability, geographical diversity, or a host of other attributes, undergraduate merit aid is distributed wildly — even recklessly. At the majority of colleges and universities today, much if not most merit money goes to students who believe they should make their college choice based on financial coaxing, not on the best fit. While some merit aid of course goes to students who have genuine economic need, much of it goes to those who can afford to pay for higher education, and who aren’t necessarily tops in their high school classes either.

Parents share the blame for the fact that these students believe they are entitled to aid. The introduction of merit awards into the college admission experience has created an epidemic of the “Lake Woebegone syndrome” — where all children are above average — and now all young people and their parents expect a scholarship because “exceptional merit” has become the norm, or at least the reality we all pretend to believe. The dollars committed to this “aid warfare” run into the hundreds of millions. It is a huge commitment of resources that does little to enhance an institution’s academic program or culture. It must be reined in.

Diverting resources of such magnitude away from academic programs, support for faculty research and scholarship, and student life opportunities is a bad choice. The need-based aid program must remain a foundation piece in the American academy; yet, at some institutions, commitments to merit aid are putting pressure on low-income students’ access to higher education.

Even colleges that that say they give no merit aid at all usually turn out to do so, just disguising it in some way. For example, the awarding of merit aid to students through named-scholarship programs that can number into triple digits at well-endowed institutions is common. The more recent choice by several name-brand universities to limit cost for families with incomes of up to $200,000 — that’s right, $200K — is effectively a merit-aid program going by a different name.

To be sure, my college does award merit aid, though I am quick to point out that we also award a remarkable amount of need-based aid, as well. (More than 60 percent of our students qualify for need-based assistance, exceedingly high for a highly selective college.) It’s required in this aid arms race.

In many ways I am arguing for the good old days when financial aid was almost entirely based on need. Those students who could afford it, paid the sticker price. An institution’s available aid money went to help those who could not. But the competition among independent colleges and universities has grown increasingly intense, and what started out as a rare incentive for only the very top students has over the last 25 years ballooned into an expectation for all but the most mediocre. As public colleges and universities have joined the merit-aid fight in the last decade, the combat — and the madness — has only intensified. Controlling merit-aid programs will not be without challenge, but it must be done. And it cannot be done alone.

So, my friends, who is willing to join me in a conversation about fundamental change to merit aid that is right and fair and consequential and, I believe, quite possible for higher education and the students we seek to serve? Who is willing?

John Roush is president of Centre College.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Control the Aid Arms Race

  • Merit Aid
  • Posted by Mike Kinney , Program Specialist for Transition Services at Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission on January 5, 2010 at 8:45am EST
  • No one needs to join you in a conversation. If you strongly believe most financial aid should be based on financial need and not merit, then just have your school adopt that policy and make your financial aid awards on that basis. You would probably influence more people through your school's actions.

  • Socialism University
  • Posted by Mike on January 5, 2010 at 9:45am EST
  • This author essentially asserts that his precious research moneys should be a sacred cow, and tuition should be raised through elimination of merit based aid. Full tuition for the rich, token financial aid for the poor, and a closed door for the middle class, no matter how intelligent, no matter how much merit. This is the attitude killing higher education.

  • Merit Aid
  • Posted by Lawrene Bottorf , Co-Founder at GetCollegeFunding on January 5, 2010 at 10:15am EST
  • Need is fine...and necessary for those who really "need" it...but for a family of 4, in an economy with over 12% unemployment...there is no way on 100K income they could afford their EFC of 18k. Without merit aid, many high achieving students in this area (Southern California) would not be as motivated to be so high achieving, nor would their parents be willing to dump the huge amounts of money and resources to help in their high achievement.

  • A Welcomed Voice
  • Posted by Daniel J. Hurley , Director, State Relations & Policy Analysis at American Association of State Colleges and Universities on January 5, 2010 at 10:15am EST
  • President Roush – Your commentary is very much on the mark. Your suggestion to rein in merit aid not only makes for a rational as well as ethical argument, it is critical to increasing the quality of, and access to American higher education, especially given rather dramatic demographic shifts that are taking place. As a leader of a selective private college, your call for action is bold.

  • Posted by Harley on January 5, 2010 at 10:15am EST
  • Should we also convert Rhodes Scholarships from merit based to need based?

  • what about the quality of needy students?
  • Posted by mp on January 5, 2010 at 11:00am EST
  • Students who have excelled should have access to scholarships, but not all need-based student applicants should be eligible for scholarships. Many shouldn't be going to a four-year colleges. My university uses merit-based scholarships to attract top students. Is that wrong? I also agree that what constitutes as "needs-based" varies. At my university, many students who have large scholarships also have to work because of the price of tuition, FEES, and living expenses. In short, trying to determine NEED is very difficult. To give aid to non-excellent students and deny major scholarships to high-achieving students begins to sound like educational Marxism.

  • Merit aid & 100K?!
  • Posted by The Larch on January 5, 2010 at 11:30am EST
  • I wonder how you "Get College Funding" when you have no idea how to manage the wealth you already have - and it seems unfair. All those who make $100K for a family of 4 and live paycheck to paycheck can cry me a river. Instead of catering your lifestyle to your salary, you should save almost half of it, and yes it can be done. I don't know if I'll ever see a 6 figure income in my household of 4, and if my EFC turns out to be 18K, I'll have the resources. College is not a question of affordability, but of finding the right fit (and thus it becomes affordable).

  • re: what about the quality of needy students?
  • Posted by Julie Hofmann , Associate Professor, Chair History Department at Shenandoah University on January 5, 2010 at 11:30am EST
  • "not all need-based applicants should be eligible"

    I thought perhaps you just phrased that sentence badly, but then read the last one, which reflects only the pop-culture/right-wing media understanding of *actual* Marxism. Speaking as someone who probably could have got merit scholarships for undergrad -- had I known they existed (first generation college students from 'needy' backgrounds often have no clue about and little help in negotiating the financial aid system, and it was much easier when I went to college) -- I think your argument is either badly stated or fundamentally flawed.

    Being able to afford college has been a way for the unqualified to get university-level educations for decades. If the parents can afford to pay, there *will* be a university that lets the upper- and upper-middle-class student in. Even if that student barely graduates, zie will continue to have an advantage over the students who were similarly qualified but couldn't get in. However, that 'less-qualified' needy student has a much greater incentive to turn things around.

    I'm all for giving aid to high-achieving students, but unless you are teaching at (or attending?) a top-tier university, you aren't getting the "top" students. You're trying to get the students who are somewhat better than your average student, because the "top" students from college-level backgrounds are already going to the top (and I'm not just talking Ivies) schools.

  • Posted by Voltaire on January 5, 2010 at 2:00pm EST
  • I strongly support merit-based aid. Most of us want, as our students, the best and brightest. By offering merit-based scholarships, we prevent students from going out-of-state for their education. It is good for us, for the university, and for the state.

  • Author is spot-on
  • Posted by Dan F. Thornton , Associate Director, Office of Scholarships and Student Aid at UNC-Chapel Hill on January 6, 2010 at 9:00am EST
  • There seems to be the growing sense, particularly among middle-class students and their parents (which has been echoed in some of the comments here) that merit scholarships constitute a form of proxy financial aid. That is an erroneous assumption, and only serves to dilute the meaning and purpose of merit scholarships. Merit scholarships by definition are--or should be--rare, and awarded truly on the basis of special attributes that a student brings to the table. In addition, merit scholarships should serve to enhance the mission of an institution's overarching goal of access for ALL qualified students, regardless of financial limitations, meaning that they serve as a complement to a solid program of need-based aid. Some institutions have opted to drain their need-based aid sources to finance merit award programs, which in my opinion is a regrettable--and expensive--development. Merit scholarships that are awarded on a mass scale to, say, recognize B averages or to serve as ersatz financial aid to middle-class households should be called by a different name.

    Perhaps the nomenclature is the real issue. Given current developments and attitudes, calling them above-average grants or middle income grants would seem to be better alternatives, since the definition of the terms merit and scholarship have apparently lost their significance.

  • multilateral cooperation?
  • Posted by Matthew Reed , Program Director at The Institute for College Access & Success on January 6, 2010 at 8:30pm EST
  • President Roush’s commentary is both insightful and timely. Merit aid has its place, and there may not be a dollar-for-dollar tradeoff between “merit” and “need-based” aid. However, it is unfortunate that while many bright students are struggling to pay for college in the current economic situation, colleges continue to devote so much of their institutional grant aid to students without regard to their financial need.

    Many college and university leaders have expressed regret about the merit aid “arms race” but realize that they cannot, as the first commenter suggested, successfully address the problem unilaterally. In our 2008 report, “Time to Reexamine Institutional Cooperation on Financial Aid,” http://ticas.org/pub_view.php?idx=346, we suggested that rethinking federal policy to allow for greater cooperation on financial aid among colleges might be one way to help target more aid dollars on those with the greatest need.

  • Merit-based is inflated...
  • Posted by Alumna on January 7, 2010 at 4:45pm EST
  • I don't think the argument presented in the article is that merit-based aid is a bad thing and/or that it should be eliminated-- just that it is inflated, and has supplanted some focus that should be on need-based aid. Many students with the most need likely have so much need because they come from backgrounds that were not conducive to developing the standard of "merit" that merit scholarships are designed to reward.

  • More than enough
  • Posted by Amanda , Graduate at Centre College on January 7, 2010 at 5:00pm EST
  • As a recent Centre College graduate, I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Roush. I came from a family of four that made approximately $90,000 a year with an EFC of around $15,000 a year. My parents had just recently been able to move up to this income level with a promotion and had no college savings. I was also expected to pay for college on my own. Centre College not only met but exceeded my EFC. I received lots of need-based aid in the form of grants and one merit-based scholarship, which actually has a large percentage of participants on campus. All-in-all, I paid about $12,000 a year for my amazing education, which is about the same as books and room-and-board at other schools. We had access to amazing faculty, small classroom ratios, and extraordinary facilities. Our campus life thrives with little cost to us, parking fees are only 10% of what you'd expect at a larger facility, and tuition fees/scholarship funds were never, ever used for campus building projects. I would give anything to have another four years at Centre College, who upholds every single day the motto of, "Personal Education, Extraordinary Success".

    Thank you, Dr. Roush. I wish everyone understood the post-secondary system like you do.

  • RE: Socialism University
  • Posted by Shawn on January 8, 2010 at 3:00pm EST
  • Mike, Mike, Mike, there is one rather glaring flaw with your reasoning. Most American colleges, including the one where the author works, spend very little money on research. It is only at the couple of hundred or so research universities that any significant resources are devoted to research. At the vast majority of the almost 4,000 colleges in this country even the complete elimination of research expenditures would produce barely a drop for the proverbial bucket and result in virtually no change in tuition rates. It is not at all unusual for financial aid--merit and need-based--to account for 30 percent or more of expenditures at these colleges, whereas research costs are often at or below 1 or 2 percent. Agree with the man or don't, but attributing an illogical motive to his position does little to contribute to the debate and a fundamental misunderstanding of the landscape does even less.

  • Shawn, Shawn, Shawn
  • Posted by DFS on January 9, 2010 at 6:45pm EST
  • The question is (monetary) aid.

    "It is not at all unusual for financial aid--merit and need-based--to account for 30 percent or more of expenditures at these colleges, whereas research costs are often at or below 1 or 2 percent. Agree with the man or don't, but attributing an illogical motive to his position does little to contribute to the debate and a fundamental misunderstanding of the landscape does even less."

    Expenditures: beyond the logical premise -- it's not relevant to the contract the student signs.

    Research Costs -- also similarly irrelevant to such a signature.

    "....illogical motive to his position...." Are you kidding? Mike's logic is rock-solid.

    "...fundamental misunderstanding of the landscape..." is all yours, of course: you should have inserted the word 'desired' into this: "...[desired] fundamental misunderstanding of the landscape..."

    There's nothing like assuming the hypothesis of the conjecture. As long as it is a conjecture instead of a theorem, such an assumption is shit.

  • One Question
  • Posted by LA Jerry , NSCS on January 12, 2010 at 12:15pm EST
  • "The need-based aid program must remain a foundation piece in the American academy..."

    Why?