Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education The poor neglected gifted child

It doesn't change the fact but it makes it somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't count if people don't know about it.

Moreover, needs-blind is somewhat of a misnomer. They do have a limit to those spots. They cannot give 100% of students a full ride, even if 100% of the most qualified applicants are unable to pay.

That's why we need to talk about it, and make people aware, right?


Are you proposing some huge negative correlation between aptitude and ability to pay? Just because there's a theoretical case in which the number would have to be limited doesn't mean that it's actually happened, or happens regularly.

If you have some special insight into how the schools are practicing policies that differ from those they advertise, then that's interesting, and news worthy. Short of that, I don't see how you can call it a misnomer.

Yes, but a lot of those colleges are offering loans as a large part of that financial aid. So, sure, a student may be able to attend a top-tier college, but he could end up with a mortgage-sized debt after four years there. For example, a family member owes something like $55-$60K for a recent Ivy education. Some students end up owing $100,000 or more.

In my opinion, it's not worth it. I went to an elite women's college back when students weren't allowed to borrow so much. I only owed $7,000 when I was done. The bankruptcy laws were different then, and loans weren't handed out like gift cards.

fulfilling 100% of demonstrated need Placing books on college selection and application in school libraries, and touting these books in school newsletters is a quick and cost-effective means of ameliorating the dearth of knowledge on a widespread basis.

This has been debated on other threads, but is worth mentioning again: "meeting need" may consist of a collection of:
- merit scholarships
- grants
- work/study (jobs on campus)
- LOANS, on which interest begins accruing immediately

Not necessarily. Scholarships and grants may be very helpful, work/study can provide a set of skills and a connection to the campus while earning a small wage, and LOANS may be unaffordable and/or work against a student and/or their family... they may come with huge opportunity cost and may add drastically to the cost of tuition. Follow the money... who benefits from the student loan principle and interest payments?

IMO, there is dignity is acknowledging one cannot afford something, even at a highly discounted price. Living within one's means is to be lauded, not to be scoffed at.

Actually they probably can, in the short run. To preserve and enhance both the institution's reputation and endowment health, Colleges/Universities may seek individuals who, based on demonstrated accomplishment/achievement/voluntary service and giving back to the community(ies) they have been a member of to-date, are likely to advance/promote the mission of the college/university as students and as alumni. For example, some may become prominent business people, politicians, artists, humanitarians, scientists, fundraisers, leaders, and even financial contributors (giving back or paying it forward as the case may be). As with other relationships in life, there may be "givers" and "takers". Colleges/universities may be wise in considering which students were high academic achievers as "takers" and possibly select instead a few more "givers" as being a better "fit" with their student body, mission, and campus life.

Once people are generous donors to a college/university, the other side of the coin which institutions may consider is educating donors' progeny; legacies develop. While some may dislike this, it indicates a sense of stability which may be considered a strong positive.

"Actually they probably can, in the short run."

Well, certainly, but I think we can all agree that we don't want our nation's finest private universities to be sustainable only in the short run.

"Placing books on college selection and application in school libraries, and touting these books in school newsletters is a quick and cost-effective means of ameliorating the dearth of knowledge on a widespread basis."

Definitely. I also believe that visiting schools and doing proper assemblies so that people get basic information is very helpful, because many students don't know what they don't know, and their parents are clueless.

"Some students end up owing $100,000 or more."

Many do, actually. I know two! For a bachelor's degree! In the liberal arts! Gah! I was like... "Dude, were you crazy?" They sure regret it now but they signed when they were teenagers.

Yes, read the context which included insight into colleges/universities making selections for sustained endowment health.

Probably a higher cost per contact on school visits? Sustainable outreach efforts budgeted on a cost per contact may require reaching the most people with a resource which may be leveraged repeatedly.

Those rankings are absolutely useless for a number of reasons, foremost among them because colleges frequently call steering students into high-interest student loans "meeting needs."


It's obviously not insignificant to you, is it? That doesn't mean your story is significant for the population at large, though.

You yourself attributed your situation to a significant amount of luck, so it doesn't necessarily affect the brightest, does it? Conversely, some of our brightest members have shared their stories in this thread, where they didn't have that luck factor. So let's set aside the anecdotes and look at the overall picture, and we see that your story is an exception, not the rule.

The fact is that you can get an education from one of the best schools in the country with no money down, and graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in debt... if you can get in. That's not luck, that's how they've decided to respond to students with very limited financial means - as a rule!

Tens of thousands of dollars in high-interest, non-dischargeable debt, an unfavorable employment market, and no experience... yes, I believe we agree on the nature of the problem.

I think DAD22 is saying that some of the elite schools are a good financial deal for low-income students who get in. He is factually correct, and I have written about this in earlier threads. I am not surprised by arguments over normative questions such as "Should college be free?". Arguments over verifiable facts I don't get.