If the system used by colleges to provide financial aid to college students based on merit determined by SAT scores, academic performance and athletic or artistic ability – instead of financial need – worked properly, it would regardless be a bad idea.
After all, it still amounts to measuring a person’s worth on something as arbitrary as whether they have one or more of three talents, leaving those who have not yet found their calling and cannot pay for a college education in the dust.
Those considered to have merit might not even need the financial aid to begin with.
A 2009 report done by the New York Times shows a positive correlation between SAT scores and home income level across all three test sections: critical reading, math, and writing.
According to Catherine Rampell, author of the article, there is an average of a 12-point difference when moving up from one income level to the next. The richer you are, the better your scores will be. Logic dictates that you are more likely to receive aid if your family is financially well off than someone from a more disadvantaged background.
Unfortunately, the system doesn’t work, at least not as advertised.
Shauniqua Epps, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, was a 3.8 GPA high school student who also participated in varsity basketball and softball. She also scored high on her SAT’s.
At the very least, she qualified for merit-based scholarship because of her SAT score, which fell in line with her college
of choice.
But she did not receive enough aid to be able attend her first or even second college of choice, because she simply could not afford it.
The same article points out the possible reasoning behind not giving aid to someone with so much merit and that need comes down to money.
Instead of offering full aid to students like Epps, colleges can attract multiple less-needy students, who also qualify on merit, but will require less assistance, allowing the schools to collect more tuition while maintaining prestige.
