<p>I'd agree, but same reasons that those SAT-lower ranking students got into HYPSM would factor into merits (URM's, athletes, incredible gpa's at pre-eminent secondary schools). I agree with you, however, that to extent legacies matter at these schools (not as much as they used to) or they are special admits because of "celebrity" status of parents, that this would not necessarily translate into merit aid. So I'll go with "most to nearly all."</p>
<p>I wasn't including URM and athletic scholarships in my definition of merit when i made the statement and I would assume that students who have "incredible gpa's at pre-eminent secondary schools" would score above the 1300's on the SAT's. But i'll grant you that many, maybe even a simple majority, of HYPS admits would qualify for merit scholarships at top 20 U's and LAC's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
maybe even a simple majority, of HYPS admits would qualify for merit scholarships at top 20 U's and LAC's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. HYPS each admits about 2000-2500 students and while a lot of them may overlap, you are still talking about, say, 3000 admits out there! There aren't really that many merit-aid scholarships out of the top-20 U and LACs. Duke has like 70, Chicago has like 30, and WashU has like 50 (ballpark figures; don't remember the exact number)? Some schools don't even give merit-based scholarships.</p>
<p>There are state flagship u's honor program with full ride, might just as good.</p>
<p>Even the top private prep schools have average SAT's in the 1300's range and there is about an even chance that those with high grades will fall above and below the average.</p>
<p>aNJm - I agree 100% !!! Nice to hear another voice from this perspective on here. I still maintain that the problem is the refusal to adjust price for incomes abouve $180k or even $200k. The truth is that many HYP families could quite easiliy pay several time the current full freight. By adjusting cost across the income spectrum we would see a much more fair situation. Even if our family only was given a very small amount of aid, I would feel much better psychologically. I truly resent being treated like Donald Trump on this. Our AGI last year was $263K -- we put $35K into 401ks, $50k into 529s, paid aggressively on our mortgage, bought a small car for my mother-in-law and a television (she is on a fixed income). Our vacations consisted of one trip to visit relatives and one camping trip. Our cars are 17-years-old, 8-years-old and 3-years-old. All paid off. No credit card debt. No equity debt. We give generously to United Way and our church. I shop Target and Costco and stay out of department stores (except at Christmas). We have saved the full amount to cover D1's HYP undergraduate full freight tuition and almost D2's. Our fear is medical or law or PhD programs. Also retirement and my H's volatile industry and poor health. We are honestly not confident our income will continue at this level. We have worked extremely hard for a very long time. It bothers us that our hard-earned wealth will be vanishing in an instant to send our kids to premium colleges while others who have not worked as hard or saved as much of their income will get all kinds of help. You bet it makes me angry. And btw I'm a democrat and don't begrudge the very high taxes we pay. That's because that cost is structured far more fairly. I do not pay the same absolute dollar amount as Bill Gates. I pay at his same percentage. That is what these schools should move to.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>That is what these schools should move to.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm still puzzled as to why. It's not as if they are the only schools a student could attend. There are different schools at different price points.</p>
<p>If prospective house buyers approached a seller with the idea that the price of the house should be adjusted according to income, they would be laughed at. If a supermarket charged one set of customers more than others they would be sued. </p>
<p>I am honestly baffled at this concept of fairness.</p>
<p>Sam Lee,</p>
<p>I think there are roughly a thousand merit scholarships awarded by top 20 U's and LAC's each year. But the issue was what percentage of HYPS acceptees would qualify to receive one not how many could actually take them.</p>
<p>Tufts announced this week that starting with the freshman class already matriculated this fall, no student whose family income is 40K or less received any loans. It was all grant money. This practice is now permanent for all future incoming classes.</p>
<p>How many of you have ever been to a Harvard regional information meeting? One thing to think about when considering Harvard (and a few of Harvard's peer colleges) is that EVERY student already does get a substantial discount, at any income level, because Harvard's list price is less than its spending per student. </p>
<p>The</a> Education Trust - Closing the Achievement Gap </p>
<p>(Remember that Harvard's total cost of attendance includes room and board, which is not a figure that should be matched up with instructional expenditures per student. Tuition at Harvard is considerably less than spending on student instruction.) </p>
<p>There are a lot of other colleges where the list price for tuition is actually HIGHER than the instructional spending per student. That's the kind of college to decry.</p>
<p>I've always wondered about those statistics. The typical prof. teaches 2 courses a semester, about 15 students a class conservatively, for a total or 60 students a year. Those students, at full fair, pay about 7K a class for about 420K total. Allowing a reasonable expense for overhead, you come up with a number far in excess of almost all assistant, associate, and even full professors at HYPS.</p>
<p>Sorry bad math. About 3.5 K per class, so 210K per prof. So depending on overhead, it's breakeven for the school if typical prof makes 105K. Sounds in the ball park.</p>
<p>Harvard's under classes not all given by prof. A lot of them given by graduates....money worthy of HYP under education, imo, PYH in this order.</p>
<p>^^Incorrect. With the exception of some writing classes which are taught by published authors and some foreign language classes which must be taught by native speakers, all Harvard undergrad classes are taught by professors. Now courses, particularly large courses, often have small study sections that are taught by TFs, but the lectures themselves are given by the profs. And the set up is much the same at Princeton and Yale and many other selective public and private universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another important exception: in large departments (e.g. economics, government), there simply aren't enough professors to teach the sophomore and junior tutorials, so grad students also teach most of those courses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are a lot of other colleges where the list price for tuition is actually HIGHER than the instructional spending per student.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pls post 'em.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>I keep beating my apparently dead horse here because of what I see as inconsistency in the approach by these schools to setting prices. Why differentiate price at <180K and not above? They are already headed down the path of a sliding scale. So the annalogy to home buying can't apply. My point is that it is preposterous to lump all families into one pot who earn over $180K. That is an enormous range of incomes -- just as enormous a range if not more than < $180K. I still believe the income tax model would work best. </p>
<p>We will certainly pay full freight for D1 if her EA school is clearly her first choice and we will be grateful to be able to do so. But I think the system is getting bandaids so far, not real fixes. That would take a truly comprehensive overhaul that would look at many more factors, including a longitudinal measure of how long a family has been at the current income. These schools house our brightest intellects. Surely they are up to the task. I don't mean to be hyper critical of them. I appreciate that they even care about fairness and outreach. Although my D is not from a disadvantaged background she is definitely not from an Ivy background -- first one to receive this enormous honor of acceptance to such a school. We are completely thrilled and I already feel myself developing a fierce loyalty to the school that has accepted her. Part of my perspective is sort of the same attitude that my parents had after coming through the Depression. When you've had a long touch climb it's hard to believe you really have the means to afford something expensive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that it is preposterous to lump all families into one pot who earn over $180K.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allow me to repeat myself. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
<p>Harvard</a> announces sweeping middle-income initiative ? The Harvard University Gazette </p>
<p>refers to "assets typical for these income levels," which where I come from suggests that Harvard still looks at both income levels and assets, as all institutional methodology colleges do.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some families know that they can apply, and then see what offer they get. But there are still a lot of families that assume that their offer of financial aid will be so inadequate that it is not even worth applying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
<p>The</a> Education Trust - Closing the Achievement Gap</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks, tokenadult.</p>
<p>Mammall:</p>
<p>Yes, I do know that not all incomes above $180k are the same, that there is an enormous gap between those who earn multiple millions a year and those who earn $200k and have only begun doing so recently.</p>
<p>But what bothers me is the sense of entitlement I detect. A higher education at a top school is not a basic necessity of life, and there are many alternatives. If one chooses to buy the more expensive model, one ought to be willing to pay in cash or taking out loans. My kids could both have gotten very good merit aid (possibly even a full ride), or gone to our state U for not a great deal more than one year's worth of tuition. I see myself working to pay back the debt until I turn 70. But I did so with my eyes open.</p>
<p>As for why Harvard and a few others do not extend finaid past $180k, see Tokenadult's post. Finally, private colleges' endowments are not analogous to taxes. There is no reason why they should be treated as such.</p>
<p>
I was right with you on the difference between $180K a year and those who make millions. There is a big difference. But, as in so many ways, life is not fair. No one has a birthright to free education beyond high school. To live in this country and have the opportunities we have, is privilege enough, imo.</p>
<p>But you have said that you have enough set aside to pay for both of your kids' education. You just don't seem to want to do so, if you can get someone else to pay. That rubs me the wrong way.</p>
<p>We don't make your income, but we are paying for a private high school and an Ivy. We take loans, clip coupons, shop at Target and have debt. Like Marite, H and I will be working long past typical retirement age to make it all work. And we have the same concerns about health and job security that you have. </p>
<p>Paying for the best education that we can provide to our kids is our choice, and I certainly don't expect you, or others in your income range, to subsidize my kids' education. Why would you expect Harvard, or Bill Gates, to subsidize your kids?</p>