Merit Based Aid Survives Criticism
This week the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs released their annual report that examines the amount of aid that states are handing out to college students. The report is a dense and lengthy read, but InsideHigherEd.com does a decent job of summing it up:
The annual report [...] shows that need-based grants made up about the same proportion of total grants awarded in 2006-7 as they did in 2005-6. Need-based grants constituted about 72 percent of the total grants awarded last year, which was actually down slightly from 73 percent in 2005-6.
The association's report comes as a growing chorus of critics call on states (as well as private institutions, for that matter) to place their grant dollars in programs that might help needy students enroll in college who might not otherwise, instead of merely changing the enrollment patterns of those who could still otherwise afford a college education. Grant aid, which is measured in isolation within the report, is particularly coveted for needy students because it does not have to be paid back.
But even that is a tad confusing. Let's see if I can make it even simpler:
1. Some people want schools to put more money into need-based aid instead of merit-based aid. Need-based means that the money goes to students whose parents can't afford to send them to school. Merit-based means that the money goes to students who have high ACT/SAT scores and a good GPA, even if their parents can pay for them to attend school.
2. The critics that are pushing for more need-based claim that merit-based aid simply rearranges where students go to school instead of allowing more students to go to school. For example, if you got into Yale and Arizona State, you might pick ASU because they would give you money. The aid from ASU wouldn't make it more possible for you to go to college. It just changes where you go college.
3. The report notes that while the amount of money given out went up across the country, merit aid still accounts for more than 25% of all grants given out. That means the previously mentioned critics didn't make a difference in the 2006-2007 admissions cycle.
This makes me doubtful such a push exists.
Of course, the article quotes the lovely, brainwashed employees of the College Board. They lovingly issue more statements that fly directly in the face of scientific data:
Sandy Baum, senior policy analyst for the College Board, said she's seeing more institutions stress need-based aid - even if seismic shifts aren't reflected (at least so far) in the national figures compiled by NASSGAP.
"I do think that there is increasing consciousness of the importance of need-based aid," said Baum, a professor of economics at Skidmore College. "I think there is some movement in that direction."
That movement is yet to be seen. For the moment, colleges will still throw tons of money at students who will make their institution look better on paper by raising their ACT/SAT and GPA averages. While the College Board might like to think that changes are coming soon, the data doesn't support that a bit.
That's because the financial aid that isn't grants still gets plenty of students the help they need to attend school. Loans may not be pretty, but they get the job done. Until someone can prove that schools are locking students out of the system by giving money through merit-based aid, the merit-based aid is still going to be a priority.
Sigh. I hate writing about the College Board. I promise the next post will be about kittens or something.