Odličen članek Catherine Rampell v New York Timesu, ki opisuje, kako so ameriške javne univerze postopoma zamenjale “need-based” kriterij z “merit-based” kriterijem za štipendije. Po domače, univerze vse raje dajejo štipendije študentom z boljšimi ocenami kot pa tistim, ki jih zaradi socialnih razlogov bolj potrebujejo. Strategija univerz je na prvi pogled racionalna in ekonomsko upravičena, saj s tem pridobivajo boljše študente in dvigujejo svoj rating. Vendar pa stvari niso nujno tako enostavne. Raziskave kažejo, da boljši študenti, ki dobijo štipendijo, poslabšajo svoje rezultate, socialno šibkejši študenti pa jih s pridobitvijo štipendije izboljšajo. Implikacije pa so še bistveno bolj daljnosežne.

Stopnja “socialnega prehoda” med dohodkovnimi razredi se je skozi čas celo poslabšala – medtem ko se je delež mladih z višjo izobrazbo v zgornjem kvartilu glede dohodkov staršev v zadnjih 40 letih povečal iz 40% na 70%, pa je v najnižjem dohodkovnem kvartilu zrasel le iz 6% na 10%. Kar seveda hkrati odraža, da so, kot kažejo tudi podatki o plačah in neenakosti, “ameriške sanje” ostale rezervirane predvsem za tiste v najvišjih dohodkovnih razredih, medtem ko je bila “tistim spodaj” možnost vstopa v “ameriške sanje” ključno omejena z dohodkovnim položajem staršev. Toda to hkrati pomeni tudi, da se z relativnim poslabševanjem dohodkovnega položaja spodnjega kvartila ne poslabšuje le dolgoročna “davčna baza” za državo, pač pa se povečuje tudi stopnja potencialne kriminalitete.

This is obviously troubling for the students who need help, but it is also bad for the state economies that public colleges are supported by and are supposed to help advance. While merit aid sounds like an effective way to combat brain drain, there is no conclusive evidence that it works. One recent study by economists at Cornell and the University of Chicago found that “nearly all” of the spending on state merit-based scholarships had little effect on keeping students in state after they graduated. Merit aid may not even be a good deal for those who earn it. A recent study by researchers at Harvard Kennedy School looked at a scholarship program in Massachusetts in which high-scoring students get tuition waivers at in-state public colleges. It found that taking the scholarship actually reduced a student’s likelihood of graduating because they ended up at a school with a completion rate lower than one of the other schools they could have gone to. Peer effects matter, it turns out. The long-term costs of going to school among those who are more likely to drop out could outweigh the upfront benefits of a cheap education.

Financial aid, however, has a hugely positive impact on whether low-income students graduate. Among needier kids, the six-year graduation rate is 45 percent when grants cover under a quarter of college costs versus 68 percent when they cover more than three-quarters, according to Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher at Edvisors.com, a network of college-planning Web sites. If you look at comparable stats for high-income students, the amount of aid makes almost no difference. Their graduation rates are around 78 percent either way.

The share of Americans with college degrees has risen significantly in the last few decades, but almost all of the growth has been among children of wealthier families. The share of 24-year-olds from families in the top-income quartile who hold college degrees rose from about 40 percent in 1970 to 70 percent in 2011. The share from the bottom quartile, however, remained pretty flat, edging up to 10 percent from 6 percent…

…

… The institutions that try to maintain their commitment to needy students like Russell, even in the face of state-budget cuts, recognize that extending access to college isn’t just about altruism. It’s about investing in your future tax base. And that’s thinking outside the box.

Vir: Catherine Rampell, New York Times