Merit-based aid. Interesting?

[mydogmolly]

MMS: Error

Thoughts on the merits of merit-based aid?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bonedoc5576]

The implication that merit-based aid takes away from need-based aid is simply wrong. They are not mutually exclusive. It is also fallacious to assume that high academic achievement as measured by GPA and MCAT is a function of income rather than one of intelligence and hard work, not to mention insulting to those of us who have received merit awards.

 

[768730]

The implication that merit-based aid takes away from need-based aid is simply wrong. They are not mutually exclusive. It is also fallacious to assume that high academic achievement as measured by GPA and MCAT is a function of income rather than one of intelligence and hard work, not to mention insulting to those of us who have received merit awards.

I had the exact same reaction. I really thought this was noteworthy given the authors (deans/chiefs/presidents at Hopkins, Stanford and Harvard). There seems to be a message of "low income students can't also be high achieving students. High achieving students are all well off and don't need as much aid." Perhaps a better topic of discussion would be how to slow down tuition increases across the board in higher education.

 

[mydogmolly]

The implication that merit-based aid takes away from need-based aid is simply wrong. They are not mutually exclusive. It is also fallacious to assume that high academic achievement as measured by GPA and MCAT is a function of income rather than one of intelligence and hard work, not to mention insulting to those of us who have received merit awards.

totally agree

 

[LizzyM]

I had the exact same reaction. I really thought this was noteworthy given the authors (deans/chiefs/presidents at Hopkins, Stanford and Harvard). There seems to be a message of "low income students can't also be high achieving students. High achieving students are all well off and don't need as much aid." Perhaps a better topic of discussion would be how to slow down tuition increases across the board in higher education.

That's not how I read it. It is saying, let's stop this bidding war for the most highly desirable candidates (super high GPA and MCAT that drive US News rankings plus URM that are needed to satisfy the accrediting body). Having one-quarter of the pool graduating with no debt while the debt of those who are forced to borrow climbs higher and higher is not helping the public whom we are meant to serve.

And this is a zero sum game. Schools have a finite number of dollars and having to bid against one another for merit candidates means less in the pot for need-based aid.

 

[bonedoc5576]

Respectfully disagree. Merit scholarships are privately funded by donors and earmarked for the expressed purpose of attracting top students and do not draw from the medical school budget

 

[mydogmolly]

That's not how I read it. It is saying, let's stop this bidding war for the most highly desirable candidates (super high GPA and MCAT that drive US News rankings plus URM that are needed to satisfy the accrediting body). Having one-quarter of the pool graduating with no debt while the debt of those who are forced to borrow climbs higher and higher is not helping the public whom we are meant to serve.

And this is a zero sum game. Schools have a finite number of dollars and having to bid against one another for merit candidates means less in the pot for need-based aid.

I guess I just read this as top schools being mad that their superstars were being stolen by merit scholarships. I also have to think that middle class candidates are going to get the short end of the stick here (as always) if we cut down on merit-based aid in favor of purely need-based. Just like undergrad, a huge number of students (full disclosure, this includes me) are too poor to afford an education but too well off to get any federal aid. If being a rockstar applicant doesn't get you a cheaper education then there are suddenly fewer avenues for these applicants to afford med school, which would incentivize fewer to go into primary care or lower paying/high need specialties.

Then again, I really don't know what I'm talking about, so please correct where necessary lol

 

[PreMedMissteps]

It's a game. Schools vie for the best thru merit to help their profile. Helping the profile brings in more endowment money and/or endowed scholarships. In that regard, it's not a zero sum game. Sometimes you got to spend money (merit) to get more money (donations, endowments, etc).

 

[PreMedMissteps]

guess I just read this as top schools being mad that their superstars were being stolen by merit scholarships.

Poaching happens. Again, it's for the reason I stated above. Raising the med school's profile is a goal. If a med school's reported stats stay low/modest, they're less likely going to be the recipients of generous donations in the short term and in the long term.

 

[LizzyM]

I guess I just read this as top schools being mad that their superstars were being stolen by merit scholarships. I also have to think that middle class candidates are going to get the short end of the stick here (as always) if we cut down on merit-based aid in favor of purely need-based. Just like undergrad, a huge number of students (full disclosure, this includes me) are too poor to afford an education but too well off to get any federal aid. If being a rockstar applicant doesn't get you a cheaper education then there are suddenly fewer avenues for these applicants to afford med school, which would incentivize fewer to go into primary care or lower paying/high need specialties.

Then again, I really don't know what I'm talking about, so please correct where necessary lol

Not sure what you call "middle class". As it stands now, if you are middle class and have a 3.95/524 then you are going to attract merit aid. Same deal if you are a trust fund baby with an annual investment income in six figures or if you were raised on public aid in a housing project and managed to pull those scores. Under a need-based scheme, the trust fund baby with the 3.95/524 gets nothing, the kid raised in public housing gets maybe 90% of a full ride and the middle class kid gets 80% of a full-ride and the school comes out ahead (rather than 3 full rides, they pay the equivalent of 170% of a full ride). Having some skin in the game might be a good thing rather than doing 100% full ride.

Dropping merit aid might hurt upper middle class kids and divert more money toward kids whose families are first generation college and relatively new immigrants working low wage jobs or running small businesses and pouring everything into their kids' education. (See story in NYTimes about cram schools in Queens.)

But for schools to go out and ask donors for cash and then spend it on an applicant who is independently wealthy or who has a parent who is pulling down a multi-million dollar salary seems difficult to swallow for me as a donor.

 

[mydogmolly]

Not sure what you call "middle class"

I'd consider myself middle class. First gen college, father's a retired cop, mom's a secretary. We make enough to live but not enough to really save. I've never qualified for any kind of aid. I went with a random school's merit scholarship for UG instead of an ivy league because the ivy offered almost zero need-based aid. My opportunity to earn a 3.95+ GPA pretty much died by the end of my freshman year, but I'm saying my only way of reasonably affording med school is to get 3.9+/520+ (or maybe a 3.8+/517+ and targeting mid tiers) because my parents make some kind of living, and I'm not URM. If that gets taken out of the picture, then I think applicants like me are in some trouble.

Also what about applicants who were raised rich but whose parents aren't supporting them in their education? I met plenty of trust fund babies in UG who had to take out loans for school because as soon as they turned 18 they were on their own.

I'm just genuinely curious about this, not trying to argue any one way or another, so I'm sorry if this comes across as combative.

 

[Piglet2020]

I guess I just read this as top schools being mad that their superstars were being stolen by merit scholarships. I also have to think that middle class candidates are going to get the short end of the stick here (as always) if we cut down on merit-based aid in favor of purely need-based. Just like undergrad, a huge number of students (full disclosure, this includes me) are too poor to afford an education but too well off to get any federal aid. If being a rockstar applicant doesn't get you a cheaper education then there are suddenly fewer avenues for these applicants to afford med school, which would incentivize fewer to go into primary care or lower paying/high need specialties.

Then again, I really don't know what I'm talking about, so please correct where necessary lol

This.

Being in middle class just sucks - too poor to receive help from parents (esp when you have more than 2 siblings) but not poor enough to receive fed aid help.

Can there be grants/scholarships for those in the middle class please? Also shout out to Asian Americans/ORMs who are not exotic enough for those diversity scholarships either...🙁

 

[efle]

It's pretty rich (pun intended) to hear this argument coming from leadership at places like Harvard/Hopkins/Stanford. These are places who will always be packed with the best and brightest, despite having no merit aid. It's easy for them to look down on allocating aid dollars elsewhere. They're forever at the top, they don't need to play the merit game.

But instead consider a place like Vanderbilt or Northwestern for a moment. They're trying their damnedest to scoop up a bunch of future leaders in (academic) medicine too, and because of the other places cross-admitting their admits, they have to throw a lot of merit money around and still struggle with yield rates of ~30%.

It's hilarious to read this and realize it's essentially HMS/JHU/Stanford saying "Stop trying to get the best applicants to matriculate to you like they do to us! How dare you, can't you see that stealing some of our students away makes it more expensive for your average admits? Stop that, your job is to be affordable for poor kids, not to build the best class!"

 

[mydogmolly]

It's pretty rich (pun intended) to hear this argument coming from leadership at places like Harvard/Hopkins/Stanford. These are places who will always be packed with the best and brightest, despite having no merit aid. It's easy for them to look down on allocating aid dollars elsewhere. They're forever at the top, they don't need to play the merit game.

But instead consider a place like Vanderbilt or Northwestern for a moment. They're trying their damnedest to scoop up a bunch of future leaders in (academic) medicine too, and because of the other places cross-admitting their admits, they have to throw a lot of merit money around and still struggle with yield rates of ~30%.

It's hilarious to read this and realize it's essentially HMS/JHU/Stanford saying "Stop trying to get the best applicants to matriculate to you like they do to us! How dare you, can't you see that stealing some of our students away makes it more expensive for your average admits? Stop that, your job is to be affordable for poor kids, not to build the best class!"

Yea not to be cynical, but this was my first impression.

 

[radiculating spines]

Given the amounts of merit-based aid given out by med schools, this is all much ado about nothing anyway. This is not like law school, where schools start throwing tons of merit-based aid at an applicant as long as their GPA and LSAT are over those magical thresholds that are their medians. I know so many people that got into law school X that offered no merit-aid and ended up going to law school Y just ~15 US News slots lower for a full merit-based scholarship. Merit-based aid at med school exists but it is vastly less common. It seems to me that schools with median MCATs and GPAs well below an applicant's scores are much more likely to yield protect them than they are to accept them and make it rain.

And really, why would I blame a school that has a candidate that they're in love with and will accomplish great things for trying to keep them from going elsewhere? Just as a school tries to acquire the best faculty, it is human nature for them to want to attract the best students. And as far as this pulling money away from need-based aid, given the vast endowments of some of these schools the total amount of money they're giving out for these fairly rare merit-aid grants is practically a rounding error.

 

[LizzyM]

I'd consider myself middle class. First gen college, father's a retired cop, mom's a secretary. We make enough to live but not enough to really save. I've never qualified for any kind of aid. I went with a random school's merit scholarship for UG instead of an ivy league because the ivy offered almost zero need-based aid. My opportunity to earn a 3.95+ GPA pretty much died by the end of my freshman year, but I'm saying my only way of reasonably affording med school is to get 3.9+/520+ (or maybe a 3.8+/517+ and targeting mid tiers) because my parents make some kind of living, and I'm not URM. If that gets taken out of the picture, then I think applicants like me are in some trouble.

Also what about applicants who were raised rich but whose parents aren't supporting them in their education? I met plenty of trust fund babies in UG who had to take out loans for school because as soon as they turned 18 they were on their own.

I'm just genuinely curious about this, not trying to argue any one way or another, so I'm sorry if this comes across as combative.

It is interesting because some of the Ivies are pretty proud of their offer of generous aid for lower income students. For example, Yale (undergrad):

• More than 50% of Yale students receive need-based aid from Yale and 64% receive financial assistance from Yale or an outside source.
• Yale does not expect students to take out loans. Instead, Yale financial aid awards includes a Yale Scholarship, a parent contribution, and a small student contribution.
• The average Yale Scholarship was approximately $47,000 for the 2016-2017 school year.
• Families whose total gross income is less than $65,000 (with typical assets) are not expected to make a financial contribution towards their child’s Yale education.
• Families earning between $65,000 and $200,000 (with typical assets) contribute a percentage of their yearly income towards their child’s Yale education, on a sliding scale that begins at 1% and moves toward 20%.

Maybe other Ivies are less generous?

Physicians make a very good wages which is why lenders are willing to lend for med school tuition. If you expect "free money" rather than loans, you should be prepared to "pay if forward" with generous donations to your alumni fund once you have completed your training. Why should others pay for you to get an education that provides you with the means to make a salary that puts you in the 1%?

A "trust fund baby" has inherited money that is their money. They don't get cut off at 18. Sometimes the money can't be tapped until they are 25 or 30 but taking loans for school (usually low interest) and paying them back with funds from the trust is sometimes a good strategy.

Sure, some students get cut off from family funds and have to make their own way in the world (see plot of Love Story from the 1970s) but that doesn't justify the need for merit money vs. need based aid without regard to family means.

 

[863168]

Why are they using law schools to establish an argument of comparison analogizing it to medical schools? Anyone with any background information on both processes can tell you how fallacious and disingenuous such an approach is on multiple levels. The American Bar Association has been morally bankrupt for years enabling law schools to submit false post-employment data. Legal judgment on law schools have been caveat emptor treating the post-graduate education in legal circles as a commodity of risk that is on the onus of the buyer to be skeptical of the goods provided by institutions. Only until a couple of years ago have applications dropped due to the exposure of the fraudulent behavior on schools to the extent that law school professors themselves such as Paul Campos blew the whistle on their own establishments.

It is absurd that the NEJM would enable such a perspective that is completely blind to context. Law schools right now must offer students merit based aid in order to coerce them to still come because they have been exposed as a bad product that is not worth its weight unless people from wealthier backgrounds with parents who are connected in the legal world can pull strings for them. This is merely one reason why those who attend law school come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds because their parent is likely in the legal field in a firm that will extend them a job or they have connections with other lawyers who they have established a support structure in which they scratch each others back. This is merely just one small subset of many explanations to which have little to no connection to medical school applicants.

 

[863168]

Actually it isn't absurd when you realize how little people care about methodology and likely only read the first line of an abstract the last line of the result.

 

[mydogmolly]

It is interesting because some of the Ivies are pretty proud of their offer of generous aid for lower income students. For example, Yale (undergrad):

• More than 50% of Yale students receive need-based aid from Yale and 64% receive financial assistance from Yale or an outside source.
• Yale does not expect students to take out loans. Instead, Yale financial aid awards includes a Yale Scholarship, a parent contribution, and a small student contribution.
• The average Yale Scholarship was approximately $47,000 for the 2016-2017 school year.
• Families whose total gross income is less than $65,000 (with typical assets) are not expected to make a financial contribution towards their child’s Yale education.
• Families earning between $65,000 and $200,000 (with typical assets) contribute a percentage of their yearly income towards their child’s Yale education, on a sliding scale that begins at 1% and moves toward 20%.

Maybe other Ivies are less generous?

Physicians make a very good wages which is why lenders are willing to lend for med school tuition. If you expect "free money" rather than loans, you should be prepared to "pay if forward" with generous donations to your alumni fund once you have completed your training. Why should others pay for you to get an education that provides you with the means to make a salary that puts you in the 1%?

A "trust fund baby" has inherited money that is their money. They don't get cut off at 18. Sometimes the money can't be tapped until they are 25 or 30 but taking loans for school (usually low interest) and paying them back with funds from the trust is sometimes a good strategy.

Sure, some students get cut off from family funds and have to make their own way in the world (see plot of Love Story from the 1970s) but that doesn't justify the need for merit money vs. need based aid without regard to family means.

Yea it wasn't Yale, they gave me a hard waitlist lol. It seems I would have gone there for almost free according to that excerpt.

And I was using "trust fund" facetiously. I just meant these kids have parents in really high places and grew up with a silver spoon.

 

[efle]

Physicians make a very good wages which is why lenders are willing to lend for med school tuition. If you expect "free money" rather than loans, you should be prepared to "pay if forward" with generous donations to your alumni fund once you have completed your training.

Here's something I've never understood. Why do universities with multi billion dollar endowments need to beg for tiny alumni donations? For universities like Yale and Harvard with ~30+ Billion endowments, why does anyone have to pay tuition in the medical program? Isn't free tuition for a few hundred med students pretty much peanuts to them?

 

[hubbsbubbs]

Here's something I've never understood. Why do universities with multi billion dollar endowments need to beg for tiny alumni donations? For universities like Yale and Harvard with ~30+ Billion endowments, why does anyone have to pay tuition in the medical program? Isn't free tuition for a few hundred med students pretty much peanuts to them?

Well i guess if you were choosing between having peanuts and not having peanuts

 

[Chromium Surfer]

Here's something I've never understood. Why do universities with multi billion dollar endowments need to beg for tiny alumni donations? For universities like Yale and Harvard with ~30+ Billion endowments, why does anyone have to pay tuition in the medical program? Isn't free tuition for a few hundred med students pretty much peanuts to them?

I think Columbia is doing a campaign to significantly increase the amount of money they can give out in scholarships, maybe other top schools will follow suit?

 

[Med Ed]

It's pretty rich (pun intended) to hear this argument coming from leadership at places like Harvard/Hopkins/Stanford. These are places who will always be packed with the best and brightest, despite having no merit aid. It's easy for them to look down on allocating aid dollars elsewhere. They're forever at the top, they don't need to play the merit game.

That's not true. The top schools do throw money at the highest caliber applicants, who end up having to choose between generous financial packages offered by Harvard, Hopkins, Stanford, etc.

In reading the article in the OP what I am hearing is a recognition that perhaps they should stop playing that silly game.

 

[Med Ed]

Respectfully disagree. Merit scholarships are privately funded by donors and earmarked for the expressed purpose of attracting top students and do not draw from the medical school budget

Some are, some aren't.

 

[efle]

That's not true. The top schools do throw money at the highest caliber applicants, who end up having to choose between generous financial packages offered by Harvard, Hopkins, Stanford, etc.

In reading the article in the OP what I am hearing is a recognition that perhaps they should stop playing that silly game.

You sure these schools don't have need-only policies?

Harvard

"
Harvard Medical School Scholarships
Students qualify for HMS scholarships when their calculated financial need exceeds the unit loan (a package of subsidized federal and institutional loans) amount established for their particular entering class. Financial need is the only criterion used to determine the amount of HMS scholarship a student receives
"

Hopkins

"All federal and institutional awards administered through the Financial Aid Office are based on demonstrated financial need."

Stanford

"
Stanford Institutional Aid
Stanford institutional grant and loan resources are limited and as such, must be rationed, and awarded soley based on student need. Merit based schoalrship is not offered
"

I know some other programs like Penn, Columbia, WashU, and even UCSF do have both types of aid. But I was pretty sure all 3 of these schools are only need-based aid.

 

[Med Ed]

I know some other programs like Penn, Columbia, WashU, and even UCSF do have both types of aid. But I was pretty sure all 3 of these schools are only need-based aid.

Indeed, I may have chosen the three worst examples. I do know they all have external merit scholarships. All I can say is that almost every student we admit can demonstrate at least some need. Even if they rode in on a silver spoon, after M1 they are generally considered independent and with zero income.

LizzyM's larger point above is exactly right, though. This is a zero sum game. If all the merit money was pulled the top students would still mostly settle out at the top schools, and there would be more need-based funds available.

Of course, this leads to a much more difficult discussion on defining need. We have students who chose to take large loans to attend highly ranked undergraduate institutions. Should they get money over the students who went to public universities? Also, we have students with wealthy parents, some of whom give a lot to their kids and some who give nothing. Differentiating them is really difficult based on the available information.

 

[efle]

LizzyM's larger point above is exactly right, though. This is a zero sum game. If all the merit money was pulled the top students would still mostly settle out at the top schools, and there would be more need-based funds available.

That's the thing - would things settle out the same without merit aid? Say Vandy and Northwestern kill their big merit programs. Don't you think that most of those superstars would now end up at Harvard/Hopkins/Stanford type places instead, since they're now similarly priced? To me it seems like a conscious decision by Vandy/NW to prioritize most impressive class >> lowest median debt, and the article in the OP are three institutions that would never themselves have to consider such a dilemma scolding the other schools for it.

...we have students with wealthy parents, some of whom give a lot to their kids and some who give nothing. Differentiating them is really difficult based on the available information.

I had a friend in exactly this situation, did not qualify for any need-based financial aid but her parents are not giving her anything. Seems very unfair, but I can't think of any good solution, since lots of wealthy families would start declaring they're not supporting their children if med schools would believe them. Does your school make an effort to differentiate and treat people like my friend as needy? Like maybe based on how college was paid for?

 

[Med Ed]

That's the thing - would things settle out the same without merit aid?

At that level the applicants are virtually interchangeable. You could take the top fifths from Northwest, Emory, Pitt, Pritzker, and Vanderbilt, stuff them into Harvard, and nobody would know the difference either now or in the future. In fact, at most levels the applicants are pretty interchangeable.

Don't believe me? DeVaul, R., Jervey, F., Chappell, J., Caver, P., Short, B., & O’Keefe, S. (1987). Medical school performance of initially rejected students. Journal of the American Medical Association, 257, 47–51.

Does your school make an effort to differentiate and treat people like my friend as needy? Like maybe based on how college was paid for?

It basically comes down to formulas. Doing a better job would require us performing invasive financial investigations on every matriculant, and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[efle]

At that level the applicants are virtually interchangeable. You could take the top fifths from Northwest, Emory, Pitt, Pritzker, and Vanderbilt, stuff them into Harvard, and nobody would know the difference either now or in the future. In fact, at most levels the applicants are pretty interchangeable.

Don't believe me? DeVaul, R., Jervey, F., Chappell, J., Caver, P., Short, B., & O’Keefe, S. (1987). Medical school performance of initially rejected students. Journal of the American Medical Association, 257, 47–51.

That paper appears to look at whether admitted vs initially rejected makes it through the medical school curriculum equally well. I don't think Vandy is fighting to steal away Harvard students for that kind of reason.

Consider this paper in table 3. It certainly looks like the typical cohorts coming out of Harvard/Hopkins can be identified vs Northwestern/Vandy. If the latter places are interested in having lots of future badass academic alumni, are the populations the same?

Like I don't think anybody on the scholarship committee believes their job is to pick those most likely to graduate on time. They're picking out the most impressive/promising candidates. I think if you take the top fifth of Northwestern this year, killed their merit program for the cycle and then took the top fifth next year, those groups might not be so identical.

It basically comes down to formulas. Doing a better job would require us performing invasive financial investigations on every matriculant, and that ain't gonna happen.

Maybe this is one defense of merit aid then - how else can a financially independent student from a wealthy family afford medical school? Can't expect them to take on 350k debt

 

[PreMedMissteps]

Maybe this is one defense of merit aid then - how else can a financially independent student from a wealthy family afford medical school? Can't expect them to take on 350k debt

I know two newish doctors who are the children of a physician. Their parents agreed to pay for undergrad, but wouldn't pay for med school. They each graduated with a LOT of med school debt. Simply having affluent parents doesn't mean that they will fund med or grad school. Many affluent parents have the attitude that they'll pay for undergrad but grad/med school you're on your own.

 

[SterlingMaloryArcher]

Not sure what you call "middle class". As it stands now, if you are middle class and have a 3.95/524 then you are going to attract merit aid. Same deal if you are a trust fund baby with an annual investment income in six figures or if you were raised on public aid in a housing project and managed to pull those scores. Under a need-based scheme, the trust fund baby with the 3.95/524 gets nothing, the kid raised in public housing gets maybe 90% of a full ride and the middle class kid gets 80% of a full-ride and the school comes out ahead (rather than 3 full rides, they pay the equivalent of 170% of a full ride). Having some skin in the game might be a good thing rather than doing 100% full ride.

Dropping merit aid might hurt upper middle class kids and divert more money toward kids whose families are first generation college and relatively new immigrants working low wage jobs or running small businesses and pouring everything into their kids' education. (See story in NYTimes about cram schools in Queens.)

But for schools to go out and ask donors for cash and then spend it on an applicant who is independently wealthy or who has a parent who is pulling down a multi-million dollar salary seems difficult to swallow for me as a donor.

And contrary to the general attitude, that is something to care about (not saying you don't.) Medical school is expensive for just about everyone.

I know two newish doctors who are the children of a physician. Their parents agreed to pay for undergrad, but wouldn't pay for med school. They each graduated with a LOT of med school debt. Simply having affluent parents doesn't mean that they will fund med or grad school. Many affluent parents have the attitude that they'll pay for undergrad but grad/med school you're on your own.

Yup, that's what mine told me. It's extremely annoying coming from a family with parents with decent jobs and everybody assumes you don't work for anything/get everything handed to you when you're really in the same boat as them.

 

[PreMedMissteps]

I know two newish doctors who are the children of a physician. Their parents agreed to pay for undergrad, but wouldn't pay for med school. They each graduated with a LOT of med school debt. Simply having affluent parents doesn't mean that they will fund med or grad school.

Many affluent parents have the attitude that they'll pay for undergrad but grad/med school you're on your own.

Yup, that's what mine told me. It's extremely annoying coming from a family with parents with decent jobs and everybody assumes you don't work for anything/get everything handed to you when you're really in the same boat as them.

Yes. It's really a wrong assumption that those from middle/upper-middle class families are getting much or any help with med school costs. Many med students have siblings so really, unless the family has unusual wealth, just getting 2-3+ children through undergrad can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. That timing is already conflicting with retirement preparations, so the idea of also paying for med/grad school for their children is simply impossible for those without means. The family I described in my above quote has 4 children: 2 that have gone to med school, 1 to law school, and 1 still in undergrad. Despite having a "doctor income" the family couldn't pay beyond undergrad.

 

[Luckyone1023]

Of the merit awards I was offered, all were independently funded, so the argument that money is taken away from need-based aid just doesn't work. Merit awards were attractive to me as I come from an upper middle class background, though I attended public schools, met college expenses through a combination of scholarships and employment, and purchased basic MCAT study guides just as anyone else. I'd prefer to think that my accomplishments were the result of my substantial efforts rather than economic privilege. The authors argument that USNWR rankings should include a metric for need-based aid as espoused by represents of Harvard, Hopkins, and Stanford seems to expose in my mind a thinly-veiled agenda of maintaining their respective elite ranking, rather than a concern for the public at large. These institutions could all make the costs of medical education affordable for everyone if that were their genuine priority.

 

[Med Ed]

That paper appears to look at whether admitted vs initially rejected makes it through the medical school curriculum equally well. I don't think Vandy is fighting to steal away Harvard students for that kind of reason.

No, that paper highlighted how arbitrary the admissions process is when comparing many applicants who are difficult to tell apart. We rely heavily on interviews to make us feel better about our choices, but those are very problematic. This is true no matter where you are.

Consider this paper in table 3. It certainly looks like the typical cohorts coming out of Harvard/Hopkins can be identified vs Northwestern/Vandy. If the latter places are interested in having lots of future badass academic alumni, are the populations the same?

I would not expect HMS and Vandy to have identical cohorts of students. I do, however, think you could swap out Vandy's most academically-inclined students with the same number of randomly chosen students from HMS and there would be no noticeable difference in outcomes. You're basically trying to choose between someone from Stanford undergrad with a 3.96 and a 520 who started an NGO and holds software patents versus someone from Hopkins undergrad with a 3.91 and a 524 who has first author publications in high impact journals. Who gets the spot?

They're picking out the most impressive/promising candidates.

Having served on committees that dish out merit awards, I can tell you that it's not easy to create a rank list of the most impressive/promising candidates. After an initial cut we might as well flip coins.

Maybe this is one defense of merit aid then - how else can a financially independent student from a wealthy family afford medical school? Can't expect them to take on 350k debt

Sure you can. And they'll likely go into fields with 400K salaries.

Oh, and it's always fun to see the financially independent student from a wealthy family who pulls into the lot in the morning in Range Rover.

 

[efle]

Having served on committees that dish out merit awards, I can tell you that it's not easy to create a rank list of the most impressive/promising candidates. After an initial cut we might as well flip coins

Really?? That would pretty much make the merit programs a waste then. Just to be clear, you didn't feel merit awards succeeded in getting the cream of the crop to matriculate more often? It was more like a stupid lottery where money is taken from the poor kids fund and awarded to lucky classmates by coin toss ??

 

[CUatthefinishline]

I'd consider myself middle class. First gen college, father's a retired cop, mom's a secretary. We make enough to live but not enough to really save. I've never qualified for any kind of aid. I went with a random school's merit scholarship for UG instead of an ivy league because the ivy offered almost zero need-based aid. My opportunity to earn a 3.95+ GPA pretty much died by the end of my freshman year, but I'm saying my only way of reasonably affording med school is to get 3.9+/520+ (or maybe a 3.8+/517+ and targeting mid tiers) because my parents make some kind of living, and I'm not URM. If that gets taken out of the picture, then I think applicants like me are in some trouble.

Also what about applicants who were raised rich but whose parents aren't supporting them in their education? I met plenty of trust fund babies in UG who had to take out loans for school because as soon as they turned 18 they were on their own.

I'm just genuinely curious about this, not trying to argue any one way or another, so I'm sorry if this comes across as combative.

Just interjecting, but I think your example is actually a prime reason why need-based aid needs to be expanded. It also somewhat supports the article mentioned. If we establish more need-based aid, like something with gradual increases based on need with an especial emphasis on the "caught-in-between" middle class, then that can further help students like you in the future. You should not had to rely strictly on merit scholarships for college, and should have been able to receive more aid according to your realistic needs.

That being said, I sympathize with you as I had to do the same for undergrad. Full-rides make all the difference no matter how far from home or your dream school you have to go.

 

[Med Ed]

Really?? That would pretty much make the merit programs a waste then. Just to be clear, you didn't feel merit awards succeeded in getting the cream of the crop to matriculate more often? It was more like a stupid lottery where money is taken from the poor kids fund and awarded to lucky classmates by coin toss ??

For the most part, yes. The schools I know reasonably well have three pots of money: merit, need, and "recruitment." The first two are self-explanatory, and often assigned after the students have committed and/or matriculated. The third is used primarily to try and snag high-performing value added groups, of which there are very few applicants in the pool.

Again, this is a zero sum game, and in the NEJM that kicked off this thread you have six heavy hitters from three top schools who are questioning the value of merit aid. Based on my experience I agree that the issue should be examined more closely.

 

[efle]

For the most part, yes. The schools I know reasonably well have three pots of money: merit, need, and "recruitment." The first two are self-explanatory, and often assigned after the students have committed and/or matriculated. The third is used primarily to try and snag high-performing value added groups, of which there are very few applicants in the pool.

Again, this is a zero sum game, and in the NEJM that kicked off this thread you have six heavy hitters from three top schools who are questioning the value of merit aid. Based on my experience I agree that the issue should be examined more closely.

That makes sense. If merit money isn't actually changing the class composition at all, I can't think of any good defense of it. Everyone would be in the same place, and better off getting more appropriate levels of need-aid.

 

[bonedoc5576]

Not a zero sum game and with good reason. There is value in both need-based and merit-based aid. If it were a zero sum game as you claim, then all benefits for need would come at the expense of merit. Your implicit assumption that there is substantial value in the name on the medical school diploma is not necessarily valid; and savvy consumers of medical education are discovering this. Nothing wrong providing real economic incentives for attracting and rewarding the most productive and promising (however you measure it) students. Very self-serving on the part of those advocating for elimination of merit aid in my opinion.

 

[PreMedMissteps]

The authors argument that USNWR rankings should include a metric for need-based aid as espoused by represents of Harvard, Hopkins, and Stanford seems to expose in my mind a thinly-veiled agenda of maintaining their respective elite ranking,

That may be some of their concern. They don't like other schools poaching what they believe are "their students," and possibly encroaching on their rankings. Hell, if they're so concerned, they can dip a bit into their mega-endowments and offer need-scholarships for low-income med students no matter where they attend.

Merit awards for yield management often takes place before schools even know if these students have "need." Many incoming med students don't submit FAFSA until the spring.

Personally, I've seen some UIMs get offered generous merit awards simply because the schools are trying to ensure that they enroll enough so that they don't get spanked. Are those that are anti-merit against those UIM awards as well?

 

[efle]

Personally, I've seen some UIMs get offered generous merit awards simply because the schools are trying to ensure that they enroll enough so that they don't get spanked. Are those that are anti-merit against those UIM awards as well?

To be fair, their qualm is merit $ going to rich kids. Unless the URMs being recruited are also wealthy I don't think their argument applies

 

[libertyyne]

I think something the item missing from this discussion is the relationship between merit and Socioeconomic class. Perhaps a majority of poor people are dumb or you know being from the middle class and upper class affords systemic advantages that translate into academic achievement that results in merit. The second chart just displays how individuals hailing from higher SES tend to make up >50% of matriculants at medical school. So even if you do hail from a higher SES and have been cut off from funding from your parents, the systemic advantage does not go away.

 

[Chromium Surfer]

I think something the item missing from this discussion is the relationship between merit and Socioeconomic class. Perhaps a majority of poor people are dumb or you know being from the middle class and upper class affords systemic advantages that translate into academic achievement that results in merit. The second chart just displays how individuals hailing from higher SES tend to make up >50% of matriculants at medical school. So even if you do hail from a higher SES and have been cut off from funding from your parents, the systemic advantage does not go away.

View attachment 224821

Just curious, how did they define middle class SES?

 

[libertyyne]

Just curious, how did they define middle class SES?

https://www.aamc.org/download/165418/data/aibvol9_no11.pdf.pdf
https://www.aamc.org/download/330166/data/seseffectivepractices.pdf

 

[efle]

I think something the item missing from this discussion is the relationship between merit and Socioeconomic class. Perhaps a majority of poor people are dumb or you know being from the middle class and upper class affords systemic advantages that translate into academic achievement that results in merit. The second chart just displays how individuals hailing from higher SES tend to make up >50% of matriculants at medical school. So even if you do hail from a higher SES and have been cut off from funding from your parents, the systemic advantage does not go away.

View attachment 224821

I actually think this graph works against some of the author's argument though. Being average vs high end is less than a 2 pt MCAT difference (with a 5 pt std.dev) and even in the highest group, the average is a 30. What that tells me is that a 38+ merit-grabbing score is something special and probably cannot be primarily attributed to rich parents buying them the newest edition of study books.

If most merit-winning kids are coming from wealthy families, I'm inclined to think it's because their parents were also very capable and hardworking people that did well with their career, not that their wealth got their kid that score.

 

[libertyyne]

I actually think this graph works against some of the author's argument though. Being average vs high end is less than a 2 pt MCAT difference (with a 5 pt std.dev) and even in the highest group, the average is a 30. What that tells me is that a 38+ merit-grabbing score is something special and probably cannot be primarily attributed to rich parents buying them the newest edition of study books.

If most merit-winning kids are coming from wealthy families, I'm inclined to think it's because their parents were also very capable and hardworking people that did well with their career, not that their wealth got their kid that score.

38 is more than 2 sd above eo1. Furthermore there is almost a 4 point difference between means of EO5 vs 1. A 38 is within two sds of EO5.

Perhaps there is a genetic component to excellence. But I have a difficult time imaging that people born in higher SES are innately better performers compared to people born in lower ses.

 

[efle]

38 is more than 2 sd above eo1. Furthermore there is almost a 4 point difference between means of EO5 vs 1. A 38 is within two sds of EO5.

Perhaps there is a genetic component to excellence. But I have a difficult time imaging that people born in higher SES are innately better performers compared to people born in lower ses.

Sure, but there is absolutely no way you can look at that data above and tell me a 38+ is primarily a product of having wealthy parents.

 

[libertyyne]

Sure, but there is absolutely no way you can look at that data above and tell me a 38+ is primarily a product of having wealthy parents.

You are more likely to have a 38+ score if you have wealthy parents. I find it interesting that you think SES has no impact on performance when the distributions are clearly different and it is a reproducible effect across standardized tests, and it is pretty robust if you look at the relative deprivation SES literature.

 

[libertyyne]

I would like to think that these results are more related to systemic factors compared to individual innate ability.

 

[bonedoc5576]

I hope you do not mean to imply that students from upper middle class backgrounds are prima facie less meritorious because of economic advantage? When need-based aid already exists, why even try to parse out merit in economic terms?