PRESIDENT’S PERSPECTIVE Financial aid and access
In this issue of Scope, we explore the College’s commitment to financial aid and its critical role in making Skidmore accessible to the widest possible range of students. Unquestionably, our scholar- ship program has paid significant divi- dends: improving the strength and di- versity of our student body, and thereby enriching the lives of every student at Skidmore.
This investment in our students has come at a substantial cost. Since 2006, we have expanded our financial aid budget from $22 million to an estimated $40 million next year—an increase of 82%. By contrast, our comprehensive fee over that period has risen 31%. We have funded these aid increases largely through budget reallocation, endow- ment growth, and gifts. During this time, the percentage of families seeking aid has grown by nearly a third, from 52% in 2007 to 68% for next year’s entering class, a trend that is likely to continue. We also have seen a
FINDING A WAY TO SUSTAIN OUR COMMITMENT TO MAKING SKIDMORE WIDELY ACCESSIBLE IS CRITICAL TO OUR MISSION AND SUCCESS AS A COLLEGE.
slow but steady rise in the average in- debtedness of our students upon gradua- tion. For the graduates of 2011, that fig- ure was $21,000—lower than the nation- al average, and quite manageable given the value of a Skidmore education—but significantly higher than it was in 2000. Beyond budgetary concerns, I have been troubled by a national trend that, in recent years, has seen more colleges and universities replacing need-based aid with “merit aid,” or more accurately “non-need-based” aid. Need-based aid goes to students who otherwise could not afford a college education, while non-need-based aid is designed not to provide access but to influence appli- cants’ choices—to encourage prospective students and their families to select one institution over another.
A 2011 US Department of Education report (Merit Aid for Undergraduates) casts
this issue in stark relief, noting a dramatic shift in how financial aid has been distributed in socioeconom- ic terms. In 1995, the study observes, colleges gave need-based grants almost twice as often as non-need- based: 43% vs. 24% at pri- vate colleges, and 13% vs. 8% at public universities. By 2007, the gap at private institutions had shrunk to 44% need-based vs. 42% non-need- based, while the percentage had actually flipped at public universities, giving 16% need-based vs. 18% non-need- based aid. Stated another way, by 2007 slightly less than half of aid recipients at private institutions and slightly more than half at public institutions received aid that was not necessary to meet their financial need. In subsequent years, this trend has continued. Today non-need-based aid represents
more than 50% of all financial aid awarded nationally.
In many cases, schools have resorted to non-need-based aid to improve their position in the “market” by raising the academic profile of their student body— for example, targeting applicants with higher SATs and class ranks. Sometimes they are responding to the actions of competitor institutions. Some schools that have struggled to enroll their in- coming classes have made the calcula- tion that offering non-need-based aid will help fill otherwise empty seats with students who will pay at least part of their costs, thus improving the financial bottom line. A number of public systems (most famously Georgia’s, with its HOPE Scholarships) have employed this ap- proach to reduce potential “brain drain” from their states.
The use of non-need-based aid has
SKIDMORE PRESIDENT PHILIP A. GLOTZBACH
certainly helped many institutions achieve their admis- sions goals; however, the cumulative effect is ultimately nega- tive—both for indi- vidual schools and for higher education as a whole. Such a situation is often referred to as a “tragedy of the com-
mons,” in which individual actors make decisions calculated to benefit them- selves that collectively lead to injurious consequences for all. The problem is that directing more aid dollars to fami- lies without financial need and away from those with need reduces oppor - tu nities for students across the socio - economic spectrum. In many cases it also adds to the costs borne by individ- ual schools. This outcome is a tragedy indeed, not only for higher education but also for our nation and the world. Although Skidmore has two small non-need-based scholarship programs (Filene Scholarships in music and Porter Scholarships in science and math), some 99% of our aid is based solely on finan- cial need. It is important to highlight one fallacy implied by the nomenclature of “merit aid.” Because we are a highly selective college, every student we aid has proven his or her merit by satisfying our rigorous admission standards. Finding a way to sustain our commit- ment to making Skidmore widely acces- sible is critical to our mission and suc- cess as a college. It is certainly a funda- mental aspect of our bona fides in oper- ating as a “public good.” Moreover, be- cause our emphasis on need-based aid follows directly from the commitment that Lucy Skidmore Scribner made in launching the school that would be- come Skidmore, it is a proud part of our heritage, and one I am determined to preserve.
SPRING 2013 SCOPE 3
GARY GOLD
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68