Since when did it become a medical schools job to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor? I am all for financial aid in undergrad, because there finances can be a hindrance to attending. But in med school where loans are easy to come by, finances will not hinder your ability to attend after receiving an acceptance.
I will say this. In college the system makes a lot of sense. Culturally, it's almost expected that parents pay for college if they can, and financial aid is an attempt to cover what they can't. It has a lot of flaws, but it makes attending a very good college a possibility for almost anyone. However, once a student moves on to college they inherit the opportunities of that college. I look at my friends who received aid, and once we moved in freshman year we lived in the same places, ate the same food, had access to the same teaching resources, volunteer opportunities, student orgs, etc... If there was one difference, I graduated with ~20K less debt than they did on average.
I think this could be a good basis for awarding aid in medical school. How much debt was the student carrying coming out of undergrad? This would still have to be reconciled with the cost of their undergrad (you can't punish people for going to state school), and how much their parents were able to pay (you can't encourage lack of parental support), but it would be a good start to at least consider how much help they've received in the past, since your finances are essentially yours once you graduate college. Further, any savings or debt paying that you contribute after graduation shouldn't be considered. If you work your tail off after you graduate, that should be yours to put towards medical school, and shouldn't be considered in aid.
No, it's medical school's job to recruit a diverse class, and being poor adds diversity and is merit for getting more money/less in debt.
Being poor adds diversity, but it isn't merit. Whatever merit aspect is there is already accounted for when you list your work-study job on AMCAS and when you receive a good nod from the ADCOMS for having to help pay for your education.
Finance won't hinder your ability to attend either, so you will have no problem financing your education.
It won't hinder his/her ability to attend, but like
@lmn just pointed out, the distribution is quite unfair, and since most parents are not paying for professional school, those receiving need-based aid are often coming out way ahead. While I prefer not to think about it, it may be a little painful to watch my colleagues who received aid spending it up after graduation while I pay down my loans. We're all receiving the same salaries after graduation depending on our choice of specialty, maybe all that need-based aid would be better spent financing those going into primary care. These schools are essentially providing aid as a part of a liberal/social mission. How awesome would it look for a med school to come out and say it will pay out 160K of your loans if you go into primary care?
But here is the other thing, it is unfair to anyone who saved money they earned (especially non-trads) for medical school. Their savings go to tuition, while the person who did not save money gets a free ride? Seems like rewarding fiscal responsibility.
This I can't agree with this enough. I won't receive aid no matter what (my father is a doctor *gasp*), but if I were in the range to be receiving aid, I would be spending it up right now. Anything that you earn post-graduation should be excluded since need-based aid is meant to cover costs for those who weren't blessed with financial advantages. Medical schools should encourage students to be financially responsible and to save money for tuition. Also, non-trads can't hide their savings. They generally have saved more than 25K. Why should they dump their entire savings into tuition and essentially start over when students coming straight out of college aren't counting their added years of attending salary on their FAFSA form?
