Merit Scholarships

[wraynop at aol.com]

The discussion of the tuition grant has brought up a couple of interesting points in discussing "needs testing" changes to the scholarship, namely that it is a zero-sum game, and the implicit assumption that only the recipient of the scholarship benefits. 
 First that it is a zero-sum game, this is true for aid directly from financial aid within a university, but not when it is created at the state level or even system level since (assuming that the tuition grant is created revenue neutral) the corresponding cut can be taken the form of a non-educational expenditure ($1-4 million in an $18-19 billion budget). As can be seen at this site <http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/fiscalresearch/frd_reports/frd_reports_pdfs/overview/Overview_2006.pdf> repealing a "Logging Machinery Sales Tax Exemption alone would provide the funds for this whole program. I am not saying where the reshuffling actually occured, only that the nature of the budgetary process makes the zero-sum game model a poor choice.
 The implicit assumption is that only the recipient of the grant benefits. From my experiences at Duke interacting with the A/B Duke Scholars I would say that while they were the primary beneficiaries of their scholarships, I certainly benefited by having a number of them at Duke as they provided a good bit of club leadership, especially in academic clubs such as the Math Union and Society of Physics Students. For those unfamiliar with them, A/B Dukes are Duke's attempt to recruit the very best students away from Ivies and such. I do not know whether merit scholars are as visible in leadership and as school representatives elsewhere, but I felt Duke got a bargain in paying for their tuition in exchange for their presence on campus. The same thing holds to a lesser degree for the NCSSM Tuition Grant program we are discussing - it keeps students who might have left in state, benefiting their classmates who now have them to work with. Regardless of how much money his/her parents made, keeping say a Westinghouse winner at UNC/NCSU would be worth considerably more than free tuition in my opinion.
 
 As a direct response to Nick's argument:
 "Emily simply because you cannot do something perfectly, that does not mean that you cannot make any attempt. For example, it would be VERY easy to eliminate those kids who are upper-mid to upper-class from this entitlement by taking 2 seconds looking at their FAFSA. How is that wrong? Perhaps you think I am a raging liberal then, but tell mehow it is bad to take money slated to educate children from the top 15% of earners while allowing children in crushing poverty to have noopportunity at all. The former group can afford to educate their"children - even if its a little hard for some." 
 Nick, it is wrong because punishing the child for the sin of the parent is wrong. Each man owns his own labor, so where is it just to exclude from consideration the children of those contributing the highest percentage of their wages? I've always felt that those who can best contribute to the academic life at a university are those most deserving of aid, not those most in 'need' since part of their tuition is paid by their contributions to the university and by raising the value of the education to those paying in full. As an aside, I subscribe much more to the ideas of Ayn Rand than Karl Marx, and would be proud to be called a conservative on this forum, since exposure to liberalism at NCSSM helped mold my worldview this direction. As I said, each man owns his own laber, so doing with it what you believe is right with said labor is an admirable quality, even if that form differs from one person to the next.
 
 Paul Wrayno
 c/o '02
 
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/alumni/attachments/20070419/f075e68d/attachment.html