No Merit in These Scholarships

"Clearly offering funding draws some students with little or no need and high achievement who might not otherwise enroll," Orin Grossman, the academic vice president at Fairfield, wrote to me when I told him I was writing this essay. And he added, "Many, though certainly not all, of the student leaders in clubs, organizations, academic programs, Fulbright scholars etc. are merit scholars, and they help to create a more responsive and receptive intellectual tone in the classroom as well."

In other words, Fairfield bought a better student body and is happy. Shapiro and McPherson, while critical of merit aid, see little evidence that the growth is coming at the expense of need-based grants. But in a world of limited resources, I do not think that situation will last.

It is hard not to sympathize with college administrators caught in the web of competitive pressure. Some have confided their dismay at having to give money to families with ample financial resources even as they try to keep tuition down. Shapiro, in an e-mail to me, pointed out that they may feel trapped into spending more than is necessary. "Perhaps the academic dean at Fairfield is correct in saying that they attract students who would not attend Fairfield without a merit award," he wrote. "But some would come anyway, and my guess is that many more would come with a smaller merit award than the one they received."

"Our work indicates that it is very difficult to wean an institution from merit aid," Shapiro added. "The hope is that you reduce the price for rich, smart kids and, after repositioning in the marketplace, you draw back on merit aid. Nice idea -- but schools get addicted to higher SAT scores and have real trouble reining in merit aid once the merit wars begin."

That raises another reason for colleges to eschew merit aid: self-interest. Right now, the very best schools offer only need-based financial assistance. But if they feel threatened, these well-endowed schools are in the best position to play the admissions game where the determining factor is cash. Rob Oden, when he was president of Kenyon College in Ohio, made this point. "Look, this is a little like poking the bear with a sharp stick," he told me. "The strong schools who only give aid based on need are the bear. When they begin to notice what we are doing because they are losing good students, they will respond and the game will end." (Oden is now president of Carleton College, a top-ranked school in Minnesota, which, like Williams, does not grant merit aid.)

That elite may have already noticed. Recently Harvard announced that it would no longer charge tuition to students with a family income below $40,000. Yale has a similar policy. My prediction is that the elite schools, with their multi-billion dollar endowments, will gradually eliminate tuition. That would trump whatever lesser-rank schools currently achieve by merit aid.

There is a better way to build a quality school: Build a better faculty. Money spent on teachers is a wise and lasting investment. Money spent trying to steal students from schools up the ranking ladder strikes me as long-term folly. In the words of McPherson and Shapiro, the current situation is "a competitive environment that favors resource-wasting maneuvers for tactical advantage over strategic investments in quality."

Perhaps these institutions should remember where grant money comes from. I have doubts that donors who support aid programs at some of these schools understand that their money is being given to the children of other well-to-do families. And I wonder whether the fundraising appeals sent to alumni and other friends of education are clear about that use of donated funds.

I am troubled by the use of financial inducements to sway a student's decision. In contrast, there is something noble about giving money to talented young people who could not pursue their education without it. I know what that gift can accomplish, and I am grateful. I wonder how grateful the recipients of merit aid will be.

Author's e-mail: FTV408@aol.com

Fay Vincent, a former commissioner of Major League Baseball, CEO of Columbia Pictures and executive vice president of Coca-Cola, has been a trustee of six educational institutions.