
Merit Scholarships in the U.S.
Merit scholarships are proof that hard work can literally pay off đ°đ„. These scholarships reward students for their achievements â from top grades and test scores to exceptional talents â by covering part of their education costs. In the United States, merit-based awards make up a significant share of financial aid. Each year over $100 billion in scholarships and grants (need-based and merit-based) are awarded to students đđž. Yet competition is stiff: only about 11% of college students will receive any scholarship money at all đźđ. Below, we dive into what merit scholarships are, how they differ from need-based aid, their presence at different education levels, and the latest trends and findings (with a fun twist of đ emojis to keep things lively).
Meritâ and NeedâBased Financial Aid: Economic Outcomes and Institutional Strategies
Merit scholarships â awards based on academic or other âmeritâ criteria rather than financial need â have become an increasingly prominent part of U.S. college financial aid, especially as institutions seek to recruit highâachieving students. Proponents argue that merit aid can boost enrollment and reward excellence, while critics note it often accrues to relatively wealthy, already collegeâbound students, raising equity concerns. In contrast, needâbased aid (e.g. Pell Grants, federal/state grants, needâbased institutional grants) explicitly targets lowâincome students. An economic and policy perspective weighs tradeâoffs between efficiency (maximizing overall educational investment returns) and equity (supporting disadvantaged students). The evidence suggests that broad, untargeted merit programs often have smaller or more regressive effects than one might assume, whereas needâbased aid tends to have larger enrollment and completion impacts for lowâincome populations.
Figure 1: Student celebrating college graduation (illustration). Merit aid outcomes hinge on enrollment decisions and degree completion. Enrollment demand for college is priceâsensitive: lowering net price via scholarships tends to increase enrollment and âyieldâ (the share of admitted students who enroll). Large state merit programs like Georgiaâs HOPE scholarship, which covered tuition for highâGPA students, had measurable enrollment effects. Using Georgia HOPE data, Cornwell et al. (2006) estimate that the scholarship raised overall freshman enrollment by about 6.9 percentage points (nearly a 12% increase among those who qualified). Gains were largest at fourâyear colleges and across racial groups, with Historically Black Colleges and Universities playing a role. This suggests merit aid can induce additional students to attend college, especially in states where an inâstate merit award significantly reduces cost. Similarly, a randomized trial of lateâstage institutional merit awards at a large public university found a large recruitment effect on disadvantaged applicants: lowâincome students receiving the scholarship were significantly more likely to enroll at that campus (displacing some enrollments at other similar colleges), whereas advantaged students responded little or not at all.
-
Enrollment and Yield Effects: Economists often interpret these enrollment responses in terms of price elasticity. Merit scholarships act like price discounts. For example, the Georgia HOPE study implies a sizable elasticity of inâstate matriculation with respect to net price for highâachieving students. Likewise, institutional studies find that offering merit aid late in the admissions cycle âshufflesâ enrollment from peer colleges to the scholarshipâoffering college. Overall, evidence shows merit awards can improve a collegeâs yield and campus profile by attracting more highâperforming applicants. However, the magnitude of these effects varies by context: Ontarioâs University of Toronto tested a needâtargeted merit scholarship and found no significant overall enrollment increase, except among students from very lowâincome neighborhoods or distant locations. This suggests that the design and targeting of merit aid (e.g. means-testing, timing) critically affect outcomes.
-
Retention and Graduation Rates: Does merit aid improve persistence and degree completion? The evidence is mixed. In large meritâaid programs, the effect on graduation is often small. Firoozi (2022) found no effect on graduation rates from a randomized merit scholarship program at a public university, even though disadvantaged students were more likely to enroll. Similarly, a regressionâdiscontinuity study of Floridaâs Bright Futures merit program (which awards scholarships based on SAT/ACT thresholds) found no positive impact on college attendance or degree attainment overall. In fact, Gurantz and Odle (2020) report âno positive impacts on attendance or attainmentâ of Bright Futures, and even a slight reduction in 6âyear associate degree completion for lowerâSES students who barely qualified. In contrast, needâbased aid tends to have clearer effects on persistence: prior studies (notably Pell Grant research) show that covering lowâincome studentsâ cost increases graduation rates by making college more affordable. For example, one study found that Pellâeligible students graduate at higher rates with financial aid support (Dynarski 2003, 2008). In summary, merit aid seems more effective at bringing students in than seeing them through; at best it may modestly boost retention among highâachievers (who tend to persist anyway) and may have little or even negative effects for lowâSES recipients lacking other supports.
-
Socioeconomic and Demographic Effects: Because merit awards are tied to academic achievement, and high test scores/GPA correlate with family resources, merit aid often favors relatively affluent, historically advantaged groups. Empirical data confirm this: nationally, White and Asian students are more likely recipients of institutional scholarships than Black or Hispanic students. For instance, NCES data (2019â20) show that at private nonprofits, 62% of Asian and 59% of White undergrads received institutional aid, versus only 53% of Hispanic and 51% of Black students. Public universities have followed a similar pattern. New Americaâs analysis finds that from 2001â2017, public colleges spent $32 billion on merit (non-need) aid compared to $49 billion on need-based aid, but much of the merit spending went to recruit wealthier, often outâofâstate students. As one expert notes, âItâs really white, wealthy students getting this aid more and moreâ. Indeed, between 2001 and 2017 the University of Alabama (a poster child for merit-aid recruiting) increased its non-need aid budget by $123 million to draw top out-of-state students, and many other schools mimicked this strategy. Thus, while merit scholarships can be needâtargeted (mean-tested) to improve equity, in practice most merit aid has expanded social stratification by steering funds to higher-income students at the expense of need-based support.
-
Return on Investment (ROI) â Students: From a studentâs perspective, ROI depends on the net cost of attendance versus the future earnings gain from a degree. Scholarships (merit or need) improve ROI by lowering net price (hence debt). Need-based grants like Pell are especially designed to do this. Recent research indicates that college pays off, but substantially less for low-income students. A Georgetown University report finds an average 40-year ROI of about $756,000 for Pell recipients (i.e., lowâincome students), somewhat below the $822,000 average for all students. However, the type of institution matters: low-income students attending public 4-year universities had even higher ROI (~$951,000) than those at private nonâprofits, because of lower tuition relative to earnings. This underscores that aid which enables lowâincome students to attend affordable public institutions can yield especially large economic gains (and societal returns). Merit aid, by contrast, often goes to students who would have high earnings prospects anyway; in those cases the incremental ROI of the scholarship (versus the studentâs next-best option) may be smaller or even captured by family budgets. In sum, reducing debt through any scholarship raises ROI, but need-based aid targeted at the financially constrained can have more transformative effects on disadvantaged studentsâ economic mobility.
-
Return on Investment â Institutions: Colleges also view scholarships in terms of net revenue and lifetime student value. Merit scholars usually pay less tuition up front, lowering firstâyear revenue. However, they also tend to persist and graduate at higher rates than students with greater financial need. For example, an enrollment consulting analysis notes that âtop scholarship recipients⊠generate less net revenue⊠(at least during their first year)â but are âmore likely to retain at a higher rate than⊠nonâscholarship recipientsâ. Over a studentâs full college career, careful calculations often show that middleârange achievers (who pay more tuition) produce the most total revenue, but high-achieving admits can still net out if their retention boosts institutional metrics. The key is balancing yield and profile versus revenue. Institutions increasingly assess net tuition revenue (total tuition minus institutional aid) rather than raw tuition discount rates, since a high discount rate can still yield greater revenue at higher sticker prices. In practice, schools fine-tune merit packages to optimize their class mix: investing aid to enroll high SAT/GPA students can, for example, raise average test scores (improving rankings or peer reputation) and minimize loss in headcount, even if net revenue per student is lower. Yet analysts caution that escalating discount rates (now above 50% at many privates) can strain budgets. Sustainable ROI planning thus requires aligning scholarship strategies with long-term revenue goals and campus mission.
Institutional Strategies: Merit Aid as an Enrollment Tool
Colleges and universities have embraced merit scholarships as a core element of enrollment management. Decades ago, elite privates used modest merit awards as prestige tools, but recently the practice has spread widely, especially among tuitionâdependent privates and regional publics. Research and trade reports highlight how schools deploy merit aid to achieve strategic objectives:
-
Shaping Class Profile: Administrators explicitly use merit awards to âshape the classâ of incoming students. For instance, one college set a 30%â70% split of merit vs. need aid and targets its merit scholarships at âacademic pacesettersâ â students with high grades and scores whose presence can boost campus academic quality. California Lutheran Universityâs enrollment director similarly explains that the goal of merit aid is to âoptimize financial aid expenditure to enhance yield with certain populations of students that weâre trying to enrollâ. In practice, this means offering merit awards to attract high-achieving applicants who might otherwise choose competitors. By doing so, colleges raise their incoming class metrics (average test scores, honors profiles, etc.), which can have reputational benefits. Indeed, merit aid is often described as a kind of price discounting strategy: it âtakes dollars off the tableâ to get an attractive student to enroll. However, enrollment managers stress that merit programs should align with institutional mission; misaligned use can lead to âbuying students not suited to campusâ. This balancing act means each college must weigh the value of higher achievement against the cost of scholarships and ensure they arenât simply filling seats with students who wonât thrive longâterm.
-
Impact on Rankings: College rankings (most prominently the U.S. News & World Report lists) place weight on inputs and outcomes that merit aid can influence. For example, U.S. News counts average SAT/ACT scores and class rank of enrolled freshmen, acceptance rate, yield, and retention rates in its formula. By recruiting more academically strong students via merit scholarships, a college can raise its average incoming credentials and potentially its selectivity (since a higher-quality applicant may raise admission standards or boost yield). Likewise, improved yield and graduation rates (through admitting better-prepared students) can enhance ranking metrics. Expert commentary notes that many institutions view scholarships as a way to improve their rankings indirectly. As Lynn OâShaughnessy observed, schools âbeyond the eliteâ often use merit awards to attract affluent, smart students because they âmust [offer merit aid] to remain competitive,â and enrollment managers have âturned financial aid⊠into a powerful tool to attract high-achieving studentsâ. In other words, merit aid can be seen as an investment in the collegeâs profile. However, there is a policy debate about whether such practices undermine equity, as higher-ranked schools increasingly mimic needâblind generosity for wealthy students, shifting aid mix away from needy applicants. (Notably, some ranking organizations have de-emphasized test scores or added social mobility measures to counteract this bias.)
-
Tuition Discounting and Net Revenue: From a financial perspective, merit scholarships function as price discounts that lower tuition revenue per student. Over the past two decades, discount rates have grown dramatically. NACUBOâs 2024 study found that private nonprofit colleges award scholarships so extensively that they discount 56.3% of tuition for first-year students on average. (That means the sticker price is essentially halved by institutional aid.) Enrollment consultants warn that rising discount rates are unsustainable without proportional netâtuition gains; as one expert notes, constantly raising discounts is like a âprisonerâs dilemmaâ â every college fears losing competitive ground if it pulls back. Institutions therefore closely analyze net tuition revenue. They monitor how changes in published tuition and scholarship strategy affect total revenue. For example, Gregory Matthews (2022) explains that a 50% discount at a highâtuition college still yields more revenue per student than a 50% discount at a lowâtuition college. Colleges thus may raise list prices and then award large merit discounts to maintain net revenue while drawing students in. The tradeoff is complex: more aid can fill seats (increasing overall tuition income) but also erodes revenue per student. Many financially strapped private colleges increasingly rely on merit aid to stabilize enrollment (especially after state funding cuts), even as they risk narrowing revenue margins.
-
Competing for Top Students: In the competitive market for high-achieving high school graduates, colleges often leverage merit scholarships as marketing. Some public flagships, regional publics and mid-tier privates aggressively court National Merit Scholars, valedictorians, and top decile students. For instance, after the University of Alabama saw success with its merit program (generating thousands of National Merit Finalists), many neighboring universities adopted similar incentives. The result has been a regional âarms race,â where schools feel compelled to match rivalsâ packages or lose top applicants. Enrollment experts caution that this can become unsustainable: offering larger and larger merit awards for shortâterm yields risks a future fiscal crunch when budgets tighten. Nevertheless, amid declining birthrates and postâpandemic budgetary pressures, many colleges feel they must use merit aid to avoid empty seats. In this environment, the political and equity implications are under scrutiny; some propose requiring colleges to meet demonstrated need fully before allocating extra funds to merit awards.
International Perspective: While U.S. institutions emphasize merit aid heavily, practices vary globally. In many European countries with low or no tuition, merit scholarships exist but typically supplement or reward excellence rather than drive basic enrollment. For example, Canadaâs University of Toronto offered a large scholarship, but found âno significant effect on enrollmentâ overall, highlighting that simply providing merit awards may not change enrollment behavior unless tailored. In Asia, scholarships often combine merit and need criteria, and in developing countries merit aid is common for top students. Comparatively, the U.S. emphasis on large, broad merit programs (often with little means-testing) is relatively unusual and has prompted debate about their role in access and equity.
Policy Implications and Conclusions: From a public policy viewpoint, merit and need aid serve different goals. Needâbased aid clearly targets equity: numerous studies link Pell Grants and other needsâbased programs to higher college enrollment and completion for low-income youth. Merit aid, while popular with institutions seeking academically prepared classes, risks inefficiency and regressivity unless carefully designed (for instance, by including income tests). The empirical research suggests merit awards can boost enrollment for some students and aid institutional goals (yield, profile, revenue), but often without commensurate gains in degree attainment or social mobility. Moreover, merit aid often substitutes for â rather than supplements â need aid funding, as institutions divert limited aid dollars to lure affluent students. Policy analysts thus argue for greater transparency and balance: one proposal is to require colleges to meet a high percentage of demonstrated need before investing heavily in merit scholarships.
In sum, the scholarship landscape involves trade-offs. Merit aid can be an effective enrollment management lever â improving selectivity metrics and bringing in talented students â but it must be weighed against its cost (discounting tuition revenue) and equity impact. An economics lens suggests focusing aid on where it changes behavior most: evidence indicates that needâbased grants to lowâincome students have stronger causal effects on access and completion than broad merit programs. Institutions seeking high-achieving classes may still use merit scholarships, but emerging research and policy debates stress designing these incentives to align with social equity goals (for example, by meansâtesting or by tying awards to underserved populations). Ultimately, any aid strategy should be evaluated by both its institutional return (net tuition revenue, class quality, rankings) and its public return (greater college attainment among underserved groups). As the landscape evolves â with changing demographics, budgets, and political pressures â careful analysis of outcomes remains crucial. The literature advises transparency in aid goals: institutions should articulate whether merit scholarships are meant to raise academic profile, improve diversity, or simply maximize enrollment, and then measure if those aims are achieved, balancing them against the core mission of access and completion for all students.



