The Student Aid Game

Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent in American Higher Education

Michael McPherson, Morton Schapiro

• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780691230917
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación superior

Student aid in higher education has recently become a hot-button issue. Parents trying to pay for their children's education, college administrators competing for students, and even President Bill Clinton, whose recently proposed tax breaks for college would change sharply the federal government's financial commitment to higher education, have staked a claim in its resolution. In The Student Aid Game, Michael McPherson and Morton Owen Schapiro explain how both colleges and governments are struggling to cope with a rapidly changing marketplace, and show how sound policies can help preserve the strengths and remedy some emerging weaknesses of American higher education.
McPherson and Schapiro offer a detailed look at how undergraduate education is financed in the United States, highlighting differences across sectors and for students of differing family backgrounds. They review the implications of recent financing trends for access to and choice of undergraduate college and gauge the implications of these national trends for the future of college opportunity. The authors examine how student aid fits into college budgets, how aid and pricing decisions are shaped by government higher education policies, and how competition has radically reshaped the way colleges think about the strategic role of student aid. Of particular interest is the issue of merit aid. McPherson and Schapiro consider the attractions and pitfalls of merit aid from the viewpoint of students, institutions, and society. The Student Aid Game concludes with an examination of policy options for both government and individual institutions. McPherson and Schapiro argue that the federal government needs to keep its attention focused on providing access to college for needy students, while colleges themselves need to constrain their search for strategic advantage by sticking to aid and admission policies they are willing to articulate and defend publicly.

Part One

INTRODUCTION

STUDENT AID is much in the news today, and much of that news is unsettling. Just a few years ago, the Justice Department was investigating some of the most prestigious colleges and universities in the country for allegedly conspiring to fix prices by coordinating their financial aid offers. More recently, we have read about universities that use sophisticated computer programs to identify students who passionately want to enroll so that they can exploit their eagerness by offering them smaller financial aid packages (Stecklow 1996) and others who proclaim their commitment to awarding financial aid only on the basis of need while at the same time offering their best admissions candidates guaranteed summer jobs and research stipends (Shea 1996). Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the resources available to give the lowest-income college students a meaningful choice among educational alternatives are dwindling and there is widespread worry that governments, both state and federal, will continue to back away from their commitments to support the education of needy students through grants and loans.

If we step back from the headlines, it is clear that several basic forces are imposing rapid change on the role and operation of financial aid in the U.S. higher education system. First, the persistent gap between the level of governmental services Americans want and the level of taxation they are willing to endure to support those services has produced relentless budgetary pressure at both state and federal levels. Higher education programs remain popular, but year by year the competition between them and other high-priority uses of funds for matters like health care and prisons grows more fierce. Second, individual colleges and universities, beset by their own fiscal problems and by intense competition for highly qualified, fee-paying students, have ceased to think of their financial aid efforts principally as a noble charitable opportunity and have instead come to focus on the financial aid operation as a key strategic weapon both in recruiting students and in maximizing institutional revenues. Finally, parents and students, increasingly worried about their ability to pay for college and increasingly persuaded that a college education provides the only hope of a secure economic future, are focused on getting the best possible education at the lowest possible price.

Where, in this highly conflictual and fluid setting, does the public interest lie? For the past thirty years, the national agenda in higher education has been defined by the goals of "access" and "choice," access labeling the goal of ensuring that no American is denied the opportunity to attend some kind of postsecondary institution by reason of inability to pay and choice labeling the goal of giving students a reasonable menu of alternative colleges from which they can pick the one that best fits their needs. The provision of public higher education by state governments, with hefty institutional subsidies that aim to keep costs to students and parents low, has been for many years the principal public vehicle for attaining these goals. The conception of the state government as the source of a fully articulated range of low-cost educational options perhaps reached its apotheosis with the publication of California's influential Master Plan in 1960, which laid out a scheme for a three-tiered system of community colleges, state colleges, and University of California campuses, within which every California high school graduate could find a suitable place. The federal commitment to these goals has roots in the postWorld War II GI Bill but became settled national policy under the leadership first of Lyndon Johnson and then of Richard Nixon. Private colleges and universities themselves signed on to these broad principles through the development in the 1950s of formal "needs analysis" systems aimed at scientific measurement of families' ability to pay for college and through the adoption, with varying degrees of sincerity, of the principles that only students with demonstrated need should receive financial aid and that all the needy students a college accepted should receive as much aid as they needed.

Although these principles have never been fully realized in practice, it is clear that the pressures to move away from them, at the state, federal, and institutional levels, are stronger than ever. The question of whether the choices made by individual governments, institutions, and families add up to a result that makes sense from a systemwide standpoint is increasingly urgent. Our aim in this book is to address that large question by looking at the system and its parts: by examining at the system level how the higher education financing system has evolved in recent decades, and with what consequences for "access" and "choice," and by considering at the level of the actors in the system—states, institutions, and students—how their strategic choices have shaped the outcomes that we see. The result, we believe, is an analysis that will allow us to see more clearly how far we have come and thereby permit us to think more realistically about options for the future.

In this introductory part of the volume, we provide in Chapter 1 an overview of the role student aid has played in the past and plays now in American higher education finance and in Chapter 2 a broad sketch of how the shifting environment of higher education is changing the way colleges and universities themselves approach the student aid "game."

Part Two of the book looks in some depth at how undergraduate education is financed in the United States, examining differences for various sectors and for students of differing family backgrounds. We review the implications of recent financing trends for access to and choice of undergraduate college and then step back to gauge the implications of these national trends for the future of college opportunity.

Part Three moves the focus from broad national trends to the workings of institutions. We first look in detail at how various categories of colleges and universities have been changing in their financing patterns—both their sources of revenue and their patterns of expenditure. This leads us to the important question of how colleges' financing decisions may be influenced by changes in external incentives, such as those created by government programs. A program of federal student aid or of tax cuts for college tuition, for example, might have its impact either offset or reinforced by the impact the program has on how colleges use their own aid funds. This set of issues is, we think, particularly salient for the president's proposed new tax program. We argue in Part Three and further in Chapter 14 that the proposed tax cuts threaten to yield a plethora of unintended consequences. Finally in Part Three, we zero in on the strategic competitive choices made by institutions in their pricing and aid decisions. This strategic dimension is increasingly important in understanding the higher education system and for thinking intelligently about policy options.

Many colleges are concerned with the strategic choice of getting involved with no-need or merit aid, and this fascinating phenomenon comes in for sustained attention in Part Four. We consider the attractions and pitfalls of merit aid from the viewpoint of both students and institutions, and we consider the question of whether and when merit aid policies may serve the broad public interest.

Our conclusions in Part Five focus on the implications of our findings for policy at the government level and for individual schools. The federal government has only limited leverage over this large and highly decentralized system, and nothing is more important than that it use the resources it has with intelligence and forethought to achieve major social goals. It is our sense that both federal and state governments have fallen short on their responsibilities, and we try to say why we think so and how they could do better. Individual colleges and universities face policy choices too, and these choices have a civic aspect to them. While resisting the temptation to preach to leaders who face limited options in a highly competitive environment, we offer some broad principles that may provide some guidance.

1

Meeting Need and Rewarding Talent

STUDENT AID IN THE U.S. SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE

THIS CHAPTER provides an overview of the evolution of the role of student aid in American higher education and a brief review of how undergraduate education in the United States is currently financed. The evolution of student aid has been shaped over the past four decades by a powerful governing vision of a pricing-plus-aid system that would eliminate ability to pay for college as a factor in college choice. Although that vision has never come close to realization, we will see in this chapter and the next that it has had an important role in shaping the programs, both government and institutional, that currently exist.

Evolution of the Student Aid Vision

Scholarship awards to "needy and deserving" students have been a feature of American higher education from its earliest days. The phrase "needy and deserving" suggests the dual purposes that such grants in aid to college students have always aimed to achieve. On one hand, there is the desire to recognize and reward highly meritorious students and thereby encourage them to invest more in their education. The aim of encouraging the further education of more successful and promising students may be seen as intrinsically worthy, if educational merit is valued for its own sake, but it also has the more pragmatic purpose of allowing society to benefit through the development of the talents of the most able students. On the other hand, there is the desire to extend the benefits of higher education more widely by helping young adults in financial need to attain more education. Extending educational benefits to the less advantaged may be valued intrinsically in terms of contributing to equal opportunity and fairness, but again there is a pragmatic justification in terms of society's interest in seeing that the talents of the less advantaged do not go to waste.

These two objectives are plainly partly supportive and partly conflicting. From a practical standpoint, the more affluent among highly talented youth are less likely to need the stimulus of scholarship awards to be encouraged to continue their education, and social recognition of their talents can be achieved in significant measure without spending money. So even from the standpoint of rewarding talent, there is a case for focusing scholarship resources on needy students. And from the standpoint of equal opportunity, there is little point to devoting scholarship funds to students whose aptitudes and inclinations make them unlikely to benefit from higher education; such folks may deserve social support on grounds of equity, but not in the form of financial assistance in going to college. Yet although this suggests a broad overlap between the policies that would be favored on grounds of rewarding merit and on grounds of meeting need, there is plainly a lot of room for difference in emphasis and interpretation as schools and society work out policies for financial aid.

Until the 1950s, the policies schools adopted in awarding scholarships were largely uncoordinated and idiosyncratic, often reflecting the views of particular donors.¹ During the 1950s, the notions of systematizing student aid policies and working out ways to use scarce financial aid dollars to maximum advantage gained prominence. One impetus was the national recognition following the experience of the post-World War II GI Bill that broadening access to higher education was a more attractive and feasible goal for higher education than many observers had thought earlier. Another force for change was increasing competition for students among eastern colleges during the enrollment drought that followed after the Korean GI Bill in the mid-1950s. Colleges found themselves bidding against one another for students in ways that echo some recent developments, and they sought ways to bring some order to these competitive efforts and place some limits on them.

Out of these forces emerged in 1954 an entity called the College Scholarship Service (CSS), an offshoot of the College Entrance Examination Board, a long-standing cooperative effort of colleges and high schools to manage admissions policies. CSS was charged with developing a systematic methodology for determining objectively how much families in different financial circumstances could afford to pay for college. The analysis was to take into account family resources, including both income and assets, and family obligations, including number of children in the household, need to provide for retirement, and medical expenses. In effect, CSS was charged with designing a private taxation system that would determine how much of an additional dollar of family income could or should go toward college expenses and how much needed to come back to the family for living expenses. Although the formulas for determining these taxing rates have evolved over time, the system CSS evolved has in its essentials remained in place, yielding a progressive tax on income and assets for college finance.

Accompanying these calculations of how much families could afford to pay for college was the development of a methodology for determining how the gap between college charges and family contributions should be met. CSS worked with colleges in developing an "aid-packaging" methodology built around the idea that students should be helped to meet their college financing needs with a combination of scholarship grants, educational loans, and work. The basic idea was that after being asked to shoulder a reasonable college workload and a tolerable burden of educational debt, the student's remaining need should be financed through grants. In the early years, the principal sources of these loan and grant funds were private, but an important feature of needs analysis and aid-packaging methodology was that it provided a handy framework within which state and federal grant, loan, and work programs could comfortably fit.

From the outset, a principal purpose of CSS's efforts was to encourage cooperation among higher education institutions in the determination of financial aid awards. CSS's principles urged that colleges should award aid only to students with demonstrated need and only to the extent of that need. Moreover, packaging approaches taken by schools should be consistent and equitable. As a means of both enforcing adherence to these principles and improving the accuracy of measurement of families' ability to pay, some schools joined together in "overlap groups," whose members systematically compared the financial aid files of student applicants whom they shared. The schools strove to reach agreement on their calculations of family ability to pay for these common applicants and thus presented a sort of united front to the families.

Underlying these prodigious efforts at calculation and coordination among the colleges was a rather powerful and attractive vision of the role of financial aid in U.S. higher education, a vision of such coherence and force that it might well be termed an "ideology." The vision suggested a way that the system of higher education, considered as a whole, could reconcile the claims of need and merit while achieving "equal educational opportunity" on a certain understanding of that notion. This vision presupposed that colleges and universities, with significant support from the government, would embrace a commitment to meet the full financial need of all their undergraduate students and to limit their financial aid to that purpose. They would simultaneously agree that admission of students would be without regard to ability to pay—admissions would be "need-blind." These commitments were to be honored in a higher education system marked by large differences in the prices, expenditures per student, and admissions selectivity of different schools, with the more selective schools being generally more expensive to attend and providing a more intensive education in terms of resources per student.

The governing idea was that with all schools agreeing on the same method for determining what families could pay and eliminating need as a factor in admissions decisions, price differences would be eliminated as a factor in the choice of college for all needy students. A family's choice among schools would be based purely on the educational and extracurricular merits of the various schools, judged by the family's lights. Schools at the same time would be exercising choice among students, through their policies of selective admission, only with regard to the student's qualities and not his or her ability to pay. Those students with the greatest "merit," as measured by high school achievements and test scores, would attend the "best," most selective schools, which provided the most educational resources. In this way, the claims of need were to be met by eliminating price as a factor in choice of school for needy students and the claims of merit were to be met by matching the most able and promising students with the best educational alternatives.

It is worth noting that this student-aid-driven vision of equity and merit was matched in public higher education by a parallel vision of education articulated in California's Master Plan. In this vision, the claims of need were to be met by keeping the price of public higher education in California low enough to be within reach of all. The colleges in the California system were to be sorted into three tiers, with differing levels of resource intensity and admissions selectivity. Students with the best high school credentials would be admitted to the prestigious University of California system; students with weaker academic qualifications would qualify for the State College (now State University) system, and the remainder of students would be eligible for the Community College system, which would provide both vocational postsecondary opportunities and preparation for transfer into the other tiers of the system after two years. Again here, need was to be addressed by keeping the price affordable for all, and merit was to be addressed by slotting students into different pieces of the system.

California's plan—stimulated by rapidly growing demand for higher education and premised on the burgeoning and seemingly boundless prosperity of that state—was imitated, often in less developed form, in a number of other states. The student-aid-inspired vision was driven mainly by private higher education and was never thought to be a realistic option without massive government support. For one thing, as we will discuss at length later, there are very large incentives for individual institutions to cheat on agreements to fund all the need of their applicants and that need alone. The truth is, most colleges and universities have never been financially able to fund the full need of their students. The schools that founded the College Scholarship Service were among the wealthiest in American higher education. The willingness of a larger community of institutions to embr...