<p>I still say that merit aid at privates and state school tuitions attract the $120-180 crowd. The Ivy's and Ivy likes are generally not even applied to if families did their financial aid homework (unless the student is an only child). Low income and high income are the Ivy crowd students. I don't think these new no loan policies will alter the bulk of their applicants. It is all about marketing and publicity.</p>
<p>According to Harvard, they currently have in the vicinity of 763 families in this income range.</p>
<p>Honestly, you just validated my point. Using college boards students numbers:
Is that the number of families in the entire school (I assume so)? If so, then that is 763 out of 6,715 undergrads and 10,010 grads. Or, to give a percent: 763/16,725 equals only 4.56% of families in that range.</p>
<p>why bother. deleted.</p>
<p>Students in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences are fully funded for 5 years regardless of income', so there is no point in keeping track of their families' income. Students in the professional schools are not funded regardless of income, so there is no point finding out their families income. </p>
<p>The relevant figure therefore is that pertaining to the college, namely 6,715.</p>
<p>The number of students in the College whose families income falls in the $120-180k range--763-- does not take into account the number of students whose families make less than $120k, in particular those who are receiving a full ride on the basis of a family income of less than $60k. </p>
<p>For the students admitted in 2007:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The admissions office estimates that 26 percent of the admitted students will be eligible for HFAI, a program that waives the parental contribution to tuition for families earning less than $60,000 a year and significantly lowers the expected parental contribution for families earning between $60,000 and $80,000 a year.
[/quote]
The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: 2,058 Accepted Into Class of 2011</p>
<p>Harvard sent out approximately 2,000 admissions. 26% would amount to 520 students. The 763 students whose families have an income of $120-180k should be added to that figure, for a total of 1283 (assuming that no student offered a full ride declined).</p>
<p>Then it is 763/6715 or 11.4% of students falling into that range. That is still less then the actual population of students falling into that income range, but much less shameful.</p>
<p>I think the point is that Harvard is trying to do the right thing with their new aid policies. Hopefully, it will make it doable for more students and not just for the low and high incomes. </p>
<p>In the mean time, for the rest of the people, merit schools will always have their place as will the most competitive and the least competitive.</p>
<p>And, college expenses will hurt no matter what income level you're at. Good thing it is only four years.</p>
<p>I don't know about "shameful." Why should that be? Expensive, yes. But why shameful? </p>
<p>At any rate, 763 plus 520 adds up to 1285/6715. Or about 1 in 6. According to Harvard, 2/3 of students in the College receive some aid. Presumably, some will receive more than in the past. And for many, a Harvard education will actually be cheaper than an education at the state's flagship university (whose underfunding is shameful--but that's another story).</p>
<p>Hana: "if you view all kinds of luxuries as necessities. Lunch is a fixed cost, and you can't work without it? Don't they make peanut butter in New Jersey? I brought a dollar-fifty bag lunch to my six-figure corporate skyscraper job every day and lived to tell the tale (and bank the balance). "</p>
<p>Among $35 the $30 is spend on the bus/subway tickets to take you to your working place. Yes, New Jersey do have peanut butter. But after 3 to 4 house a day spend on commute and 10 hours in a high pressured working environment, you just don't feel like to do any thing...</p>
<p>And please don't pretend you know what type of life styl we lead. We had lived on the income around $15k in early years, still made some saving even then (though very small amount). Put ourselves through local colleges (graduate), never took up any loan. Up to this day we still do most of our shopping at discounted department stores at a 'on sale' price tag, Cutting coupon to buy groceries, driving 8 years cars; wearing seiko, barely spend any money on entertainments, no birth day party(part of it because no time), no birth day presents to each other in family, no Xmas present to each other either, etc. etc. .... living a straight simple yet busy life to save up the fund for kid's education. The only luxury thing we want is for our kid to get a 'luxury education' and be happy with his life...... While I've seen ppl make far less than us lived a far 'luxuries' life style than us. While they can get some type finantial aid, just because they don't have any saving and they made less. At the same time we are expected to pay the full freight. It just seems not fair to me.....thought we deserve some kind break.</p>
<p>As I said before Rolex, Omega or Seiko all tell you the same time. Same princple apply to the education. If your generation can't realize the ivy dream, then take full ride to state college and work hard make sure your next generation gets it. There is no sense to 'rob' suedo 'rich' to give to the suedo 'poor'.....the way as I see it with the college tuition raise year after year, the 'poors' got finantial aid 'free ride' ivy, the 'filthy rich' with trusted fund donate money buy out the slot for their kids to ivy, our kids have to make choice between 'free ride to public or 2nd tie college' or 'pay full freight' to ivy. During the process there got be some money shuffling around.....How fair this is?</p>
<p>The colleges give out the money can write off. The ones get the money don't have to pay tax (at least tuition part). We as parents expected to pay 'full freight' for our kids get no tax break at all. How fair this is?</p>
<p>With that said, my hat to Harvard. They raise the bar. Only hope every one can get the fair chance to take some break. </p>
<p>As for need/gender/race blind college admission, its my believe that as the institution provide the education to next generation, only 'merit' should count, nothing else. If you are super 'talent' from an extremly poor family, then some finantial aid. Otherwise, every one should get the same level 'break'. The kids with the same 'merit' from family with income $60k or $80k above should face the same choices "Free Ride to State Flag or less brand colleges" or "Pay the ratio of cost to Ivy".</p>
<p>I don't know if this has already been mentioned or if it has anything to do with Harvard's change since this is before H's announcement, but Duke announced a new financial aid program on the 8th.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Duke is eliminating parent contributions for families who earn less than $60,000 a year. Undergraduates from families with total incomes below $40,000 will have no loan packaged into their financial aid. The loan component of aid will be reduced for families with incomes from $40,000 up to $100,000 on a graduated basis. Going forward, Duke plans to also freeze the loan component for all four years of attendance at the current freshman level, eliminating the practice of annual increases.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>spiffystars--that's been most Ivies' plan for several years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think there is any state in the country, certainly none outside the northeast, where the top end of the middle quintile even reaches $100,000 in annual income.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Token, </p>
<p>You are certainly right, and it is not even close for the middle quintile. </p>
<p>Planning for kids education is one of those things that adults should do before they have their first child. Families in the 120-180 income range by the time kids enter college, for the most part, have had years to accumulate assets to pay for it, and have had money to spare to invest. </p>
<p>Sure, there are exceptions, people whose income has only reached this range in the last year or two. Sure there are people who have had massively expensive illnesses or other reversals that depleted what was to have been a college fund. </p>
<p>However, for the most part, if you make that kind of money and do not have a fund to pay for college, it is because you decided not to bother. This might have been conscious, or implicit in other lifestyle choices, but they were choices. People who are int the 120-180 range have been at double or more the median income for a long time. How much money they have depends more than anything else on how much they spent over the years. </p>
<p>We don't have a boat, a second home, or a car less than 8 years old. Our idea of a vacation is driving to visit family, not flying off to stay in a hotel. We have always marveled at families that made less but spent more than we did. Now their kids are looking for merit aid or cheap colleges because the family did not save. Our lifestyle is not sacrifice, it is responsible money management for adults with responsibilities.</p>
<p>If you don't think Harvard is worth full price, that is a valid choice, don't pay it. But don't blow through all your money then complain about the cost.I wonder how many alumni will be willing to donate money so irresponsible families can get a deep discount. Harvard does have the funds to extend this policy up to the 200-500 "middle" income suggested above. That does not make it a good idea.</p>
<p>If everyone lived such a miserly life the economy would implode and nobody would be making $200,000/yr. That boat builder employs 2000 people at good wages. The second home builders also employ people as do the hotels, automakers and on down the line.</p>
<p>And I am going to do my part by patriotically doing some serious Christmas shopping this weekend!</p>
<p>Interesteddad,</p>
<p>I just read your earlier posts on the impact of this change on merit aid granting schools. I think you have it wrong, at least for top 20 U's and LAC's.
These merit offers can easily be enhanced without much financial impact. I think the big losers are top 20 U's and LAC's with less impressive endowments who have painted themselves into a corner by scorning merit aid on principle yet do not have the ability to match enhanced need based packages from HYPSM. I think Swarthmore is pretty well endowed so I don't count them in this group but many of the lesser Ivy's and LAC's may find themselves in this bind.</p>
<p>Frankly, there are plenty of highly qualified students to fill the top 20 Us and LACs. The fact that some schools have changed their financial aid policies will not alter that landscape. Many who send their kids to HYPSMC full fare could have sent their kids to some other schools where merit aid was available. There is no reason for that to change.</p>
<p>I would venture to say that all (or so as not to be too absolutist...or nearly all) who get in HYPSM could get merit aid elsewhere, including top flight u's and lac's who grant it. What is, btw, the "C" at end of traditional abbreviation?</p>
<p>I think YPS may follow because they are the most impacted by Harvard's movement and they may have the endowment to match that. For other schools, they can't put a decent fight with Harvard anyway even before this; it's not worth the risk to follow when the marginal benefit seems to be so tiny. If YPS follow, the power of merit-scholarships from schools like USC/WashU/Duke would diminish.</p>
<p>C is Caltech.</p>
<p>thanks, makes sense although never saw that acronym before</p>
<p>Redcrimblue,</p>
<p>Currently the bottom quartile of students at HYPS have SAT's in the 1300's. I doubt very much if any of these students would get a merit scholarship at a top 20 U or LAC. Being a double legacy at Harvard provides little help in getting a merit scholarship at Duke.</p>