One of the major criticisms of Dartmouth is its apparent preference for following trends than starting them. With the University of Pennsylvania's announcement this past week -- joining Harvard, Yale and Stanford as peer institutions which have recently increased financial aid to low-income families -- that it will waive tuition, room and board for students with a combined family income of less than $50,000 per year, Dartmouth has missed out on yet another opportunity to set an example for its peer institutions. The College should seriously consider adopting a similar if not more ambitious policy to encourage greater economic diversity in an arena already dominated by privileged elites.
Penn's decision to provide grants to the 300 to 400 students who are eligible reflects an earnest attempt to combat the increasing socioeconomic barriers to economic diversity at elite educational institutions -- according to the Century Foundation, in 2003 only 3 percent of students at the most selective schools come from the lowest socio-economic quarter. While we recognize that the growing paucity of students from middle- and lower-class backgrounds at elite colleges is due primarily to social and economic factors, institutions can make a difference. We understand the difficulties in assessing financial aid decisions and the many ways in which student debt can be alleviated. However, we feel that this represents an opportunity for Dartmouth to take a leadership role on an important issue. To be fair, Dartmouth already boasts a generous financial aid program for low-income families -- in particular, the provision of grants to students from the Class of 2009 onward with family incomes below $30,000. With its large financial resources -- our endowment of $472,000 per student makes us the seventh wealthiest university in the country -- Dartmouth should be able to afford not only to help students but to be a leader.
The impact of a more generous financial aid policy goes beyond improving Dartmouth's reputation. It also provides a more level playing field in the admissions process. Early Decision, often criticized as inherently advantageous to wealthy families who need not consider differing financial aid offers, becomes a viable option for more students. Finally, such a policy provides students on financial aid with greater freedom in choosing career paths, as the reduction of the crushing pressure of student loans makes consideration of income less important.
Ultimately, Dartmouth's current commitment to an aggressive financial aid policy must be commended, although we urge the administration to consider following the example set by its peer institutions. We hope that in the future, it will be Dartmouth whose policy becomes the standard for its peers. Acting now to change our policy now would allow us to use our reputation to contribute to a worthy cause.
