Headline: “Is It Fair to Award Scholarships Based on the SAT?” from WSJ
I follow the Wall Street Journal on Twitter, and as I was scrolling through my feed Sunday morning, I came across this article. As someone who took the ACT and SAT and was very active in the college admissions process, I had to read.
The teaser under the headline immediately caught my attention. I have been keeping track of the standardized test controversy since my time as a college applicant. The story brings a less-often talked about, but more important aspect of the issue, though. Should standardized tests continue to be used to award merit scholarships?
The most impressive thing about Douglas Belkin’s (the reporter) story is his statistics and the way data are presented. Right after the lead, he grabs the reader by saying that $30 billion is given out each year in merit aid, plus another $2 billion in state scholarships.
More impressive, though, are the three visuals of data. The first shows how private schools’ amount of merit aid corresponds to the school’s ranking or status (Ivy League universities offer merit-based aid to less than 1% of freshmen). Belkin provides that lower-ranked schools are more apt to offer merit-based aid to attract higher achieving students away from those top schools.
The second graph indicates that students coming from more affluent homes are receiving more aid (not including need-based aid). This highlights the evidence that Belkin says shows a disparity between wealthier students with more access to tutors and study help to prepare for the standardized tests that affect such merit-based aid.
Belkin uses a great source in regard to that information. A student counselor from a poor rural school in Georgia, where merit-based state-sponsored scholarships can cover up to full tuition (but requires a 26 on the ACT), said that students do not have access to private test preparation of study courses, only test prep booklets. Ending the story on that note, Belkin ends his story with a final punch. The disparaged simply cannot compete.
As the story’s final data graph indicates, state aid, the average of which was entirely based on need in 1980, now relies much more on non-need based aid. This is widening the gap between affluent and poorer students, which is often racially-factored. The gap between the SAT scores of Asian students, then Whites, Hispanics and black students is monumental, and is reflected in how each race claims its share of top scholarships in Florida. Last year, Asian students (3% of the student population) earned 9%, in contrast to African-American students (21% of student population) earned just 4%. The data Belkin uses make the story that much more compelling.
Belkin’s sources are solid. The superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools is quoted on how Florida’s system hurts minority students, especially those who speak English as a second language and are affect by immigration, in an area with lots of Latino and Cuban influence.
The article also drew me in with an example that hit really close to home. After quoting the vice chancellor of enrollment at the University of Denver, who said that although they see the inequity of using SAT scores in allotting scholarships, they do it because students with high scores have a high market value and must be courted remain competitive with other schools, Belkin used our university, the University of Mississippi to provide evidence to that quote.
He said, “At the University of Mississippi,” the most generous scholarship for out-of-state students pays $16,272 to students with a grade-point average of at least 3.0 and a 1450 on the SAT. That covers about half of all costs for students from out of state.”
Personally, I have heard about how remarkable Ole Miss’ scholarships are. I have also seen it for myself. Ole Miss lured me away from my home state with its scholarship offer, which allows me to pay less to attend here than I would have at home. (Despite Louisiana having a merit-based state program, it has been subject to budget cuts in recent years, and state universities are stingy with their university-provided aid, making my total cost at Ole Miss less than it would have been at LSU.)
The story was attractive because of its information, its data and its sources. It was a compelling story about something that has directly affected me, and will continue to affect the entire U.S. college and university system.
As for adding value, Belkin wrote a solid story that I would be hard-pressed to criticize. One thing, though, that would add value to the story is talking about solutions. How would states begin to correct the disparity in their aid programs, and how should lower-ranking universities try to stay competitive with top and Ivy League schools without using merit scholarships to do so?
These are the questions we all need to be asking moving forward, as these issues continue to affect less-affluent Americans and their abilities to attend college and succeed.