Rice Financial aid still needs work

By James Dargan     2/20/13 6:00pm

 

Perhaps the most widely bragged-about feature of Rice University's admissions process is financial aid. Admissions officers assure prospective students that 100 percent of demonstrated financial need will be met by the university. This promise entices many students who would otherwise dismiss Rice and comparable universities with large sticker prices to apply. 

Overall, Rice performs exceptionally well in fulfilling this pledge. But many struggle to afford their Rice education. Generous aid packages reduce the financial liability to relatively minor amounts for low-income applicants. High-income applicants can fund their education without assistance. The middle class gets squeezed in between, receiving neither overly generous financial aid nor possessing sufficient savings to pay upfront. It is the middle class that bears the highest debt upon graduation. 

---

---

Rice's financial aid policy contains a troubling clause: Outside awards are considered resources and will reduce the amount of financial aid you are awarded. It is a feature not unique to Rice; however it is seriously flawed. 

Denying students the ability to use outside scholarships to pay for their personal contribution unfairly burdens those whose expected family contribution is unrealistic. Furthermore. only a portion of the many potential extenuating circumstances appear in financial aid applications. I have no doubts that the Office of Financial Aid makes efforts to account for this, but this process inevitably leads to misjudgments. 

This policy discourages students from applying for outside aid at all. Why apply for that privately funded scholarship when all awards will be deducted from your existing financial aid? I am sure many students decided against applying for those small scholarships prior to attending Rice when they realized winning those scholarships would not make Rice more affordable. 

Students should be rewarded for winning outside scholarships. Privately funded scholarships are in short supply. Winning even modest awards requires significant effort and dedication. The most popular essay contests require original and thoughtful analysis of novels or philosophical ideals but pay only a few thousand dollars, if that. These applicants spend hours filling out personal information and answering the typical questions such as why Student A deserves scholarship X. Most applications end in rejection. Why should the winners lose the reward for their hard work? 

Other arguments could be made, but these three main points sufficiently highlight the unintended consequences of this policy. An alternative policy should be explored that balances the competing goals of equating costs of attendance across incomes and correcting the flaws above. Reforming this policy to a partial deduction would be a simple method to address these concerns, allowing students to retain a portion of their scholarships for payment of their expected family contribution. A 50-50 split would be a good starting point for this conversation. 

Only removing a portion of the earned outside aid from Rice financial aid empowers students who currently struggle with high expected family contributions to reduce this burden by their own efforts. Even more, such reform enables motivated students to reduce their parents' bill by their prerogative. Those who already apply and earn outside aid would be compensated for their success. 

Reforming this policy would save Rice money. A partial reduction would restore the incentive for students to apply for outside aid in the first place. If students retain a portion of their awards for personal expenses, they gain a benefit from winning. Future students might apply where previous students have been discouraged. If successful, Rice's expenditures would decline along with those of individual students' after-aid cost of attendance, producing a net benefit for all parties involved. 

Rice's Office of Financial Aid and its broader administration deserve the praise currently received by ratings agencies and the Office of Admission, but the policy of deducting outside awards from university-granted financial aid remains deeply flawed. The policy may have been implemented for valid reasons, but the unintended consequences are significant and undesirable. A partial reduction from university aid corrects these concerns. Unseen complications likely hinder any path to reform, but it remains a conversation worth having. 

James Dargan is a Wiess College sophomore. 

---