<p>The Baltimore Sun had a great article about college costs and reported that at Johns Hopkins 24.2 percent of tuition revenues go directly for financial aid. I was wishing that the article had appeared before the May 1 admissions deadline for those students who are looking at big loans to finance that "dream school" education. If I read it right, those who borrow to fill the gap are essentially financing someone else's degree. I had been curious as to whether people paying the full tab were offsetting those who didn't and was quite surprised that Hopkins gave a number.</p>
<p>A few colleges are upfront and honest about it.</p>
<p>The idea is to make you feel good about your decision. Sometimes that takes a five to ten percent discount. Sometimes it means telling you that full-pays are really getting a discount. I like to look at OOS public costs as a better estimate of what college could cost but even the public universities subsidize out of full-pay students.</p>
<p>Interesting article because one rarely sees the figures in such stark terms. So now we know that the full pay student at JHU is basically donating almost $10k per year to help someone else attend. Too bad it’s not tax deductable…</p>
<p>No. He is expending funds so that that he learn alongisde better qualified, more capable students with the added benefit of bringing greater diversity to the campus. It is an investment in a better education - for the student paying.</p>
<p>I agree, this is a very unusual article. It clearly states 24% of tuition revenue goes to financial aid at Johns Hopkins. I wish the article was clear on the source of this data, since we so rarely see something like this in print. </p>
<p>What we usually see on this topic is what was said about Dickinson:
</p>
<p>The Goucher president may regret the first part of this quote:
<p>I’m guessing Goucher’s president will also regret whatever he actually said that influenced the reporter to write that “it’s only fair for the wealthiest families…” comment. Since when has paying for college been fair?</p>
<p>The article doesn’t give a source for this dubious claim. For it to be true, the full pay students would have to be paying a lot more than their education is actually costing the university. But we see that </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So at Dickinson, no part of tuition goes to financial aid; indeed, tuition doesn’t even cover a full-pay student’s costs. Yet we are to believe that at Johns Hopkins, not only does a full-pay student pay all of his own costs, but he also pays some of a needy student’s costs. If you believe this claim, and make some reasonable assumptions about how many students get financial aid at Hopkins, you’ll discover that full tuition is twice costs! So Johns Hopkins has found some way to deliver education on the cheap.</p>
<p>Sorry, no. This reporter got it wrong. The claim is just wrong.</p>
<p>The Goucher comment is odd since Goucher offers non-need based merit grants, thereby discounting tuition for families that the school itself has determined can pay full tuition.</p>
He is expending funds so that that he learn alongisde better qualified, more capable students with the added benefit of bringing greater diversity to the campus.
[/quote]
mini, are you saying that the students who receive need-based financial aid are “better qualified, more capable” than the ones who are paying full freight? If so, I’d love to see the data that led you to this conclusion… it would certainly seem to contradict the many posts elsewhere on CC claiming that admissions based on test scores, advanced high school preparation, extracurricular activities, &c unfairly favor “the rich.”</p>
<p>“are you saying that the students who receive need-based financial aid are “better qualified, more capable” than the ones who are paying full freight?”</p>
<p>Mini’s assertion is completely false in my son’s department.</p>
Mini’s assertion is completely false in my son’s department.
[/quote]
Ditto in my son’s case. And of course, the assertion is completely illogical. But then, imho so is bashing full-pay students instead of sending 'em a thank-you note for (involuntarily) helping to make institutional need-based aid possible.</p>
<p>I think I might have misinterpreted mini’s original statement, though; hence the request for clarification.</p>
<p>Geez guys, have you considered that mini’s hypothesis might be flawed but her answer correct? How 'bout an alternate hypothesis?</p>
<p>No. He is expending funds so that he can sit beside the dopes he will be managing after graduation. It is an investment in social training, learning how to get the most from lesser stock and thereby maintain economic and social superiority.</p>
<p>“mini, are you saying that the students who receive need-based financial aid are “better qualified, more capable” than the ones who are paying full freight?”</p>
<p>I am saying 1) they are better qualified for our children to be around, as they offer a diversity that cannot be obtained in any other way, and hence improve the quality of everyone’s education, and 2) yes, if (and this is true for most, but not all colleges) the college were restricted to accepting only those who pay full freight, the aggregate student body would most certainly be less capable.</p>
<p>My son attends a school with a 21% 4-year graduation rate with extremely generous need-based aid. He is the strongest student in his department. I regularly talk to a former professor and his impression is that most of the kids that attend that university would be better off just going straight to work. They have had to dumb things down so much that it’s hard to consider it education. Which is one of the reasons he headed for industry.</p>
<p>Our son has spent time in third-world countries which make the poor in this country look rich. The platitudes aren’t always true and frequently aren’t.</p>
they [students who receive need-based financial aid] are better qualified for our children to be around, as they offer a diversity that cannot be obtained in any other way, and hence improve the quality of everyone’s education
[/quote]
Well, there you have it, folks.</p>
<p>mini, I’m still having trouble understanding this – I think I disagree with you, but I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying. What do you define as “diversity,” and what benefits does it provide for which a full-freight student should happily pay $37,897.20 over a four-year span (based on JHU’s numbers, the 24.2% of his tuition that reportedly pays nothing but other students’ tuition subsidies)?</p>
<p>If “diversity” means “exposure to people who have lived a different lifestyle from yours,” then aren’t Rich Kids providing just as much “diversity” on campus as Poor Kids? My (full-freight minus merit aid and possible third-party scholarships) student certainly has never been exposed to the lifestyles, social norms, attitudes, and unique conditions of the very wealthy. But your statement implies a different definition of “diversity.” What is that definition, please? I don’t understand this – and again, I sincerely want to understand. This notion crops up again and again on CC, and it always makes me scratch my head. What is the direct benefit of “diversity” for which some students must pay dearly, and others essentially receive payment? What is the contribution of this “diversity” to the quality of, say, an Engineering degree? How will rubbing elbows with a student who receives need-based financial aid improve the quality of my son’s education, to the extent that he should have no problem with taking on an extra $37,000 in loans for that express purpose?</p>
<p>mini’s statements are broad generalizations and intentionally provocative and offensive but as usual there is a kernel of truth in them. Generous financial aid policies are absolutely required in order to have a diverse campus, and a diverse campus is absolutely required in order to have a good educational experience. So full pay students are “buying” the opportunity to live and study alongside “needy” students. Not too different from paying $$$$ to spend three weeks in a hut in Guatemala on one of those ‘service’ summer camps.</p>
<p>My D is very concerned that the economic downturn will result in a less diverse campus when she starts college next year. She is tired of being around other affluent, privileged kids, and is looking forward to slumming with the needy poor people for a few years in college. How’s that for an intentionally provocative and offensive statement ;-)</p>
<p>“My D is very concerned that the economic downturn will result in a less diverse campus when she starts college next year. She is tired of being around other affluent, privileged kids, and is looking forward to slumming with the needy poor people for a few years in college. How’s that for an intentionally provocative and offensive statement”</p>
<p>She should just attend Roxbury Community College. Or any of the many schools in really poor areas. No need to mix affluent with poor. It’s not hard to find schools in really bad neighborhoods.</p>