When a college spends over $7 million on a football coach, what’s a relative few extra thousand dollars to spend on one relatively upper-income superstar student?
That’s what happened last week when high school senior Ronald Nelson made news for turning down all eight Ivy League universities in favor of a full ride to the University of Alabama.
That full ride – presumably Alabama’s National Merit/Achievement Scholarship for National Merit and National Achievement Scholars – covers:
- Tuition (currently $25,000 for out-of-state students) for up to five years of undergraduate study;
- One year of on-campus housing (currently $16,000);
- A $3,500 stipend per year for four years; and
- A one-time $2,000 stipend for summer research or international study.
- Oh, and an iPad. According to Apple, that should cost around $499 before tax.
The grand total should come out to at least $160,000 over five years. Compare that to Coach Nick Saban’s salary over five years ($35.8 million), and his earnings alone could pay for approximately 224 of such out-of-state superstars.
Or, in case Alabama remembers that it’s a public university with a mission that should be directed at Alabama residents, Coach Saban’s salary could cover five years’ worth of tuition for 729 in-state students. Or, a full-ride for 416 talented Alabama students from low-income families, which would cover the remaining unmet need after other forms of financial aid.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, in Alabama or elsewhere. As yesterday’s report on “The Out-of-State Student Arms Race” from my colleague Stephen Burd at New America found, Alabama today enrolls more out-of-state students on campus than it does in-state ones – likely deemed a “successful” outcome based on President Robert E. Witt’s directive to “recruit top student scholars with the same fervor as top athletic prospects, and look beyond the state’s borders to find them.”
In fact, Alabama’s quest for out-of-state students is one of the most aggressive in the nation– and likely for all the wrong reasons. As Burd states, there are two major reasons public colleges pursue out-of-state students: (1) for greater out-of-state revenue, to make up for sharp state budget cuts; and (2) for greater prestige, (to pay) to enroll high-performing students to boost the college’s overall academic profile, and subsequently, rankings.
While Alabama has faced a 40% cut in state higher education funding since 2008, that doesn’t fully explain its heavy reliance on full-scholarship non-need-based financial aid. In addition to the National Merit/Achievement Scholarship, UA has 13 other types of non-need-based scholarships, five of which provide at least full tuition for four years. Reason #2 – to gain more prestige – is more likely the case: Nearly one-quarter of its freshman class has zero financial need yet received an average grant aid of nearly $12,000. This dollar amount ranks highest among public flagship universities.
Looks like UA’s investment is paying off in intended ways. As Burd finds, UA used to be a second tier institution in the late 1990s. Today, it breaks the top 100 (88th) among all national universities and breaks the top 50 (38th) among public universities. This past fall’s freshman class also broke records with the highest average ACT score in UA history: 26.1 (no doubt Nelson’s score of 34 will boost that average this year!)
But a public university like Alabama should be ashamed of itself for acting in this way. By fact of investing so much of its financial resources into non-need-based financial aid, they clearly divert their attention from other priorities – like meeting its public mission to enroll the hardworking, low-income and hard-pressed middle class students of Alabama – and the nation.
The numbers bear this out. In 2013, they enrolled only 18 percent Pell students (the 2nd lowest among colleges with similar admission standards), and charged low-income students an out-of-pocket net price of $17,206 (the highest among its peers!) This fits Burd’s conclusion swimmingly that “public colleges that provide substantial amounts of merit aid tend to enroll fewer students with Pell Grants and charge low-income students a higher average net price than those that provide little merit aid.”
It’s clearly not about the money. If Alabama’s priorities were straight – they could reinvest anything from its current merit scholarships to Coach Saban’s salary to enroll more low-income and in-state students.
So to kick things off, why doesn’t President Witt issue another directive? Instead this time, make it:
“Recruit top low-income student scholars with the same fervor as top athletic prospects, and look everywhere inside the state’s borders to find them. Leave no square mile untouched.”