Across American higher education, a quiet inversion of purpose has taken hold: institutions designed to expand opportunity have increasingly used their financial aid systems to attract the already comfortable, offering tuition discounts to affluent families while students of genuine need shoulder heavier burdens. A former admissions dean, speaking from inside the machinery, names this practice for what it is — a betrayal of institutional mission dressed in the language of merit. The question she raises is ancient and unresolved: when resources are scarce and values are stated, whose interests
Former Dean: Colleges Must Stop Paying Wealthy Students to Enroll
Every dollar spent on discounting tuition for the wealthy is a dollar not available for the struggling.
Mark
Why do colleges do this if it seems so obviously at odds with their mission?
Mimi
Because it works. Enrollment is down, competition is fierce, and a wealthy family's tuition payment is reliable revenue. Merit aid is cheaper than actually solving access problems, and it looks good in the rankings.
Mark
But doesn't this create a kind of moral hazard? The college gets to claim it's committed to equity while actually doing the opposite.
Mimi
Exactly. It's the perfect cover. You can say you're investing in excellence and opportunity while your actual practice is to make college more expensive for those who can least afford it.
Mark
What would change if colleges actually redirected this money?
Mimi
You'd see more low-income students able to attend without crushing debt. You'd see institutions actually living up to their stated values. But it would require colleges to accept lower revenue in the short term and trust that doing the right thing matters.
Mark
Is there any sign that's happening?
Mimi
Not systematically. Some institutions are moving in this direction, but the incentives all point the other way. Until there's real pressure—from trustees, from the public, from students themselves—the machinery keeps running as it is.
Mark
What does a former dean have that others don't when making this argument?
Mimi
Credibility. She's not an outsider criticizing from a distance. She's someone who lived inside the system, made these decisions, and came to see them as wrong. That carries weight.
Le Pouls
- Colleges under enrollment pressure have quietly redirected financial aid away from low-income students and toward affluent families whose tuition dollars stabilize institutional budgets.
- A student working two jobs to stay enrolled may receive less aid than a wealthy peer with weaker credentials — not by accident, but by design.
- The language of 'merit' obscures the transaction: what colleges call scholarships often function as recruitment discounts targeting families who could already afford to pay.
- A former admissions dean is breaking institutional silence, arguing from firsthand experience that this misallocation is both indefensible and correctable.
- The path forward requires colleges to realign aid allocation with their stated missions — prioritizing need over enrollment optics — but institutional will, not resources, remains the obstacle.
Across American higher education, a quiet inversion of purpose has taken hold: institutions designed to expand opportunity have increasingly used their financial aid systems to attract the already comfortable, offering tuition discounts to affluent families while students of genuine need shoulder heavier burdens. A former admissions dean, speaking from inside the machinery, names this practice for what it is — a betrayal of institutional mission dressed in the language of merit. The question she raises is ancient and unresolved: when resources are scarce and values are stated, whose interests do our institutions actually serve?
Behind the glossy brochures of college admissions sits a financial logic that most families never see — and that works backward from what fairness would suggest. The wealthier a family is, the more likely their child is to receive a tuition discount. A former dean of admissions has come to see this as indefensible.
Facing enrollment pressures and competing for prestige, colleges have increasingly deployed merit aid and tuition discounts as recruitment tools. The target is not the student who cannot afford college — it is the student whose family can already pay. The logic is straightforward: attract affluent enrollees, stabilize finances, improve the incoming class profile. The cost falls on everyone else.
What makes this particularly corrosive is how it compounds existing inequality. A low-income student with exceptional credentials often receives less institutional aid than a wealthy peer with comparable or weaker ones. The wealthy student gets the discount because the college wants their tuition dollars. The poor student gets told the college is committed to access — and handed a larger bill.
Merit aid and need-based aid are not the same thing, and conflating them obscures what is actually happening. Merit aid is a marketing tool — a way for colleges to claim investment in excellence while actually investing in enrollment from resourced families. Every dollar spent discounting tuition for a wealthy family is a dollar unavailable to a student working two jobs to stay enrolled.
The former dean making this case carries particular weight because she has sat inside the system — seen the spreadsheets, attended the meetings, understood the pressures. Her conclusion is not ideological but experiential: colleges must stop subsidizing the already comfortable and redirect aid toward students who genuinely need it. This is not a radical proposition. It is a return to first principles — the idea that an institution's resources should serve its stated values. Whether colleges will act on that idea remains the open question.
The machinery of college admissions has a peculiar logic that most families never see. Behind the glossy brochures and acceptance letters sits a financial calculus that often works backward from what fairness would suggest: the wealthier a family is, the more likely their child is to receive a discount on tuition.
This is the reality that a former dean of admissions has come to see as indefensible. Colleges across the country, facing enrollment pressures and competing for prestige, have increasingly turned to merit aid and tuition discounts as recruitment tools. The target is not the student who cannot afford college. It is the student whose family can already pay full freight—or close to it. The logic is simple: attract affluent enrollees, boost the institution's financial position, and improve the profile of the incoming class. The cost is borne by everyone else.
What makes this practice particularly corrosive is how it compounds existing inequality. A student from a low-income family, even one with exceptional grades and test scores, often receives less institutional aid than a wealthy peer with comparable or even weaker credentials. The wealthy student gets the discount because the college wants their tuition dollars and the stability they bring. The poor student gets told the college is committed to access—while being handed a larger bill.
The mechanism is dressed up in the language of merit. Colleges award scholarships based on academic achievement, athletic talent, or other accomplishments. But merit aid and need-based aid are not the same thing, and conflating them obscures what is actually happening. Merit aid is a marketing tool. It allows colleges to say they are investing in excellence while actually investing in enrollment from families with resources. The student who needs help most often qualifies for less of it.
This misallocation of limited resources has real consequences. Every dollar spent on discounting tuition for a wealthy family is a dollar not available for a student working two jobs to stay enrolled. It widens the gap between who gets to attend college and who does not. It reinforces the idea that higher education is a privilege for those already privileged, with a small window of access for the exceptional poor student who can prove their worth.
The argument for change is not complicated. Colleges exist, at least in theory, to serve a public good. They have missions that speak to access, opportunity, and social mobility. Those missions are hollow if the institution's actual practice is to subsidize the already comfortable while asking the struggling to pay more. The resources exist to do better. What is missing is the will to reallocate them.
A former dean making this case carries weight because she has sat inside the system. She has seen the spreadsheets, attended the meetings, understood the pressures. She is not arguing from ideology but from experience. And her conclusion is stark: colleges must stop paying wealthy students to enroll. They must redirect aid toward students who actually need it. This is not radical. It is a return to first principles—to the idea that an institution's resources should serve its stated values. The question now is whether colleges will listen, or whether the machinery will continue grinding forward, enriching the already rich while calling it merit.
Citations marquantes
Colleges must stop paying wealthy students to enroll and redirect aid toward students who actually need it— Former college admissions dean
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur The New York Times ↗
Education