...for middle- and upper-middle-class families, the sticker shock at an élite university can be overwhelming. And the recent interest-rate hike of almost 2% on government-backed loans only increases the distress.
Fortunately for those families, a growing number of public colleges and less élite private schools are waiting for them with a bushel of new scholarships that used to be based on need but now are based on merit. The schools are simply following the times: these days even public colleges are obsessed with improving their rankings, which can be done in part by attracting high-scoring students with offers of an all-expenses-paid education. Although need-based grants still make up the overwhelming majority of all scholarships, the giving has been tilting slowly but surely toward the best and the brightest. A decade ago, 90% of state-college grants were need-based. Today it's barely 75%.
What's wrong with giving a bright kid a free ride? Well, consider what happens to the students who used to get those grants. Maybe they weren't the best students, but they still belonged in college. Now they may not be able to afford it, says Sandy Baum, an analyst with the College Board. "We need to have a national discussion of our priorities," she says. "Why do our state schools throw money at the highest-scoring students? What happens to the other kids?"
There is a possibility, however, that the shifting financial-aid priorities could result in a kind of virtuous mixing of the college gene pool. High-achieving kids are going to lesser-known schools and public institutions in greater numbers, drawn by the generous offers. They will inevitably bring higher academic standards with them. And lower-income communities are finding that their gifted kids can gain entry to the most expensive schools, perhaps helping pry open the austere gates of Harvard Yard a little wider in the process.
I'm not sure what's more ridiculous/offensive--the nonsensical logic or the condescending assertion that wealthier students are necessarily smarter and more worthy. "Consider what happens to the students who used to get those grants. Maybe the weren't the best students, but they still belonged in college." Maybe they weren't the best students?Maybe they were. Why should we assume that low-income students aren't also good students, or the best? Many colleges don't give wealthy students financial aid because they're bright--they give them aid because they're wealthy, and still contribute more money to the bottom line than poor, equally smart students.
But that's okay, apparently, because it results in "virtuous mixing" whereby the poor (and therefore less smart) students at public universities will be granted the rare privilege of going to school with wealthier (and therefore smarter) students and the "higher academic standards" that they will "inevitably" bring. How fortunate that the plebes from public colleges will be allowed to mix with their social betters and enjoy the leftover results of the new academic standards they bring. Remember that guy from college with the new Saab who didn't have to work to pay tuition and partied at the frat house all weekend? That was really great, how he would spend his spare time sharing his knowledge with the ignorant lower classes and insisting that the administration increase the rigor of classroom teaching.
Moreover, the wealthy recipients of undeserved college scholarhships should feel not even a twinge of guilt, because "lower-income communities are finding that their gifted kids can gain entry to the most expensive schools." Translation: because a small number of phenomenally wealthy institutions like Harvard are belatedly doing the right thing by devoting more financial aid to their less privileged students, that makes it okay that a whole lot of other universities are doing the opposite by steering more financial aid away from those students. As long as a few more low-income students are admitted to a few more wealthy schools, everyone else is morally in the clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment