The only beef you can have is if schools make it difficult for consumers to figure out who they are really set up to serve. No school can be everything to all people.
Harvard is set up to serve wicked smart kids (top 1%) from the top 3% and the bottom 80% of incomes. So Harvard is awesome (academically and financially) if those parameters fit you; but it is worthless if you don’t.
A 90% income kid whose family can’t afford Harvard full sticker may find a great financial fit at USC through merit aid. But USC’s merit dollars going to that kid means there’s going to be less money available to some other kind of kid.
Every school (even Harvard with all of its billions) has a budget. And as generous as Harvard’s aid is, they still have two students from the top 5% for every kid they have from the bottom 50%. Since Harvard is so rich, you can make a compelling case that they (not oft-maligned NYU) are the most stingy money-grubbing school going.
But I think Harvard is just fine – they decide what their resources, priorities and mission are and then act accordingly. NYU and USC do exactly the same.
The only thing you can ask is that the schools make it easier for the families to figure out the places where their kid’s academic and financial fit might be.