Content area
Full text
Introduction
The fiscal climate for institutions of higher education has changed dramatically in recent decades (Doyle and Delaney 2009, Hossler, et al. 1997, Hu and St. John 2001, Tandberg 2010). Public and private colleges and universities have felt the squeeze of the economic downturn while many public institutions have experienced regular and significant declines in state appropriations (Doyle and Delaney 2009, Hossler, et al. 1997, Tandberg 2010). At the same time, families are being asked to pay more for their students' education (Hossler, et al. 1997). In this climate many colleges and universities, particularly state institutions, have begun to shift from a low-tuition, low-aid model to a high-tuition, high-aid model (Hossler, et al. 1997, Hu and St. John 2001, Monks 2009). This shift means that colleges and universities are awarding more and more aid based on merit rather than need (Heller 2004, Dynarski 2004). There is growing concern amongst educational leaders that these developments are making it more and more difficult for needy students to afford a college education (Singell, Waddell and Curs 2006). What impact do these developments have on the ideals of access and equity upheld by many educators and academic leaders in higher education? Will these rising pressures limit efforts to effectively serve the traditionally underserved? This article explores these issues and provides a critique based on the theoretical work of Pierre Bourdieu. It concludes with a series of implications for institutional leaders and enrollment managers interested in pursuing goals of social justice and access in an increasingly fiscally-tight environment.
Merit-based Aid and Need-based Aid: A Complex Picture
Any discussion of financial aid must first acknowledge its inherent complexity (Kalsbeek and Hossler 2008, McPherson and Schapiro 2002). Definitions of merit and need, central concepts for financial aid and enrollment management, have become increasingly blurry (Baum 2004). Even as merit has come to denote any number of special attributes that may be deserving of financial awards, knee-jerk or simplistic reactions to such uses must be held in check. As Kalsbeek and Hossler (2008) note, enrollment management goals are such that institutions cannot lump all merit-based aid together, as if it were all of the same type or driven by the same purposes. The reality is that institutions will have various enrollment goals...