CARLISLE Pa., May 22 (AScribe Newswire) -- These days I feel like I'm in the midst of a verbal joust, the likes of which one used to hear on a popular late-night television show.

"Whoever gives me the best package."

"And the question is ... How are you going to make your final college choice?"

As national education issues go, one of the most critical these days is the use of money to attract well-off students to private colleges. I have been advising students in the transition between high school and college for 29 years. Perhaps it's the economy, the war and terrorism.

But to me and my colleagues, this year it's all about "the buck." I understand this and accept it, of course, but after hearing, "College X gave me more money; what can you do?" for the 100th time, I begin to wonder if anyone is listening to our messages and if anyone really cares about value.

Price, of course, is one component of value, but other factors include program strength, faculty commitment, alumni accomplishments and mentoring, facilities, campus-life opportunities peers, even location.

Education is an investment in one's future - long-term gains sometimes make for short-term losses, i.e., a higher tuition. But this is apparently lost on a generation of parents who seem to be more concerned about out-of-pocket expense today than about the development its children will experience at a college that engages them fully with the life of the mind and encourages outside-the-classroom connections. I understand fully that if two institutions are perceived to be "close" in quality, the less expensive will get the nod. But I am increasingly seeing top-rated colleges passed over for institutions that are not even close, just because of the price of tuition.

What can we do, besides waiting for an improvement in the economy? We have been through rough times before. But my sense is that even when the economy and world situation improve, colleges will still discount heavily and selectively to lure the best students. Why? To improve their market position.

Whether our economy returns to the prosperous good old days or not, liberal-arts schools like Dickinson College will remain vulnerable: they are expensive, they do not teach vocational skills, and they are not as visible as universities.

To lure the best students to our institutions, we could forgo needed tuition revenue and offer more financial aid to students who do not need the help. There are two problems, with this scenario, though: Many colleges' budgets are dependent on tuition and the more money they devote to non-need-based (merit) aid, the less they will have to assure access to well-qualified students whose families do not have the means to send them to college.

Another option would be for a college to give up on competing for the top students and instead focus its resources on the mid range that is not currently being awarded merit aid. By doing this they could compete financially with institutions slightly below them on the selectivity scale, enabling them to enroll a larger number of very good - vs. great - students. But this is hardly in an institution's best interest.

So what to do? Colleges must stop trying to outbid each other in a frenzied attempt to secure their enrollments because when they do this, they cheapen education and they deprive the institution of funds it needs to provide excellent programs and facilities - instead lowering price to attract "customers." This is short-sighted and in the long run is actually "anti-consumer." Students are paying less but they will also be getting less. Ultimately, the quality of the academic environment depends not only on top SAT scores and GPAs but how students embrace a college's mission to better the campus and the world around it. To be successful we not only need to shift this paradigm of heavy discounting but we must promote value heavily and provide evidence that an excellent education is more than a degree - it's a way of thinking and solving complex problems that will benefit a student for a lifetime.