Re: Non-academic scholarships-Yay or nay?
 

I fully support scholarships that aren't of an academic nature. College kids are poor and any help they can get, they should.

I had the chance at a sports related scholarship but I lost it due to an injury and because my parents make too much money, I'm not eligible for student loans, but I do manage to get small scholarships here and there.

When you think about it, college is an academic institution, but with college there are big college sporting events. These football, basketball, baseball, etc. teams give the students and faculty spirit, pride and all that. They can also make quite a bit of money on them. If the school wants that recognition and that revenue, it needs the athletes. I believe that some college athletes should get paid on top of the expenses that the school might cover.

Re: Re: Non-academic scholarships-Yay or nay?
 

No way! Getting that scholarship is payment. If college athletes get paid, then I want money too for having an above-average GPA.

Schools that look only at need do so because the VAST majority of applicants are already academically competitive, and would all qualify for merit-based scholarships. The Ivy League (which ARE NCAA Division I-AA) does not offer athletic scholarships because the mission is to support "amateurism in athletics" and to put academics first, and offering $40K packages to someone because they play football isn't supporting that mission. With that in mind, I have absolutely no problem with schools offering need-based packages ONLY. If someone who's in the middle is willing to work/take out loans in order to go to Harvard/Yale/Princeton...go for it.

Oh yeah...ANYONE can take out student loans. It doesn't matter income...but public schools can't offer federal loans to students who don't qualify for financial aid, but can offer federal or private loans to their parents.

Sorry, I need to proof-read. The 1700 was a typo. His SAT was 1530. (800 math/730 whatever the other half is)

And the "weighted" grade is exactly as Chopper described. In his high school AP and Honors courses were on basically a 5 point scale. (A=5, B=4, etc.) Non AP and Honors courses were graded on a normal 4.0 scale.

Having said that, it would probably not be possible to achieve a "perfect" 5.0, because not every course in the school had "weighted" grading.

There was, for instance, no Honors or AP Phys. Ed or Health. Most elective courses were not Honors or AP, so the highest you could get on those was 4.0 -- although there was an AP Music Theory class.

The highest GPA that I'm aware of in his class was a 4.5 or so, which was received by one of his best friends, and she is now at Harvard. Fortunately, she is from a very wealthy family. (Her SAT was just the opposite of our sons, 800 is it verbal?/730 math)

I think they were both AP Commended Scholars, although she (amazingly) made it in her Junior year. She got dispensation and took two AP courses as a Freshman, and a total of twelve during her four years. She attended an alternative, self learning, K-8 school. She is amazing and drop dead georgous. We told her we will attend the ceremony when she receives her concurrent Nobel Prizes.

Every course she and our son took (except the electives) were either Honors or AP -- and that was tough. The Honors program at their school won a national award from the US Department of Education the year they graduated.

Some colleges don't accept "weighted" grades, but I think most do.

I have to go w/the pro-non academic monies :)

In high school, my grades were so-so so due to the fact I really didn't care, but, when it came up to crunch time (ya know..when I actually started caring) it was too late. Thankfully, I received a Music Performance Scholorship for 2 instruments and I -have- to keep my GPA up and go to every freakin' little performance no matter what. So now, a good chunk of my education is paid for each year. Also, when I get out of school I won't have to pay back any loans..ick..

Correct. However that doesn't change the fact that students who don't achieve as highly in high school, but are from less prosperous families will be given larger grants.

Also, I think (that's an important word, I'm not offering this as a proven fact -- just experiential learning) that most students in smaller colleges are given aid of some kind, no matter what the parents income level is.

Again, I'm not arguing against need based aid -- I'm all for it. I just feel pretty strongly that there should be BOTH -- otherwise, as I said above, the really high achievers are penalized by university policy.

I suspect that "need only" aid has more to do with Political Correctness than being fair to all students. In the end, though, it comes down to a subtle discrimination against outstanding middle class students. Kids from poor families will receive "need only" aid, and those from wealthy families don't really need it. The kids in the middle get nailed by accident of birth.