<p>Does anyone know where the specifics of the Harvard plan are? Is there a revised calculator on their web site? I don’t see it.</p>
<p>Re Post 318:</p>
<p>I hope that scenario is wrong! I would hope the parents would think of the total cost of sending both kids to great colleges rather than comparing how much it costs to educate one over the other. If one kid gets into Harvard at a cost of only $10k instead of say $35k, the cost of sending one kid to Harvard and one kid to Tufts would be $55k. The cost of sending both to Tufts would be $90k and both to UMass $40k. By any yardstick, Tufts is a great school.</p>
<p>The fact is, that while more students will be applying to HYPS, not many more will be admitted, even with the small expansion of their student bodies. Those non-admitted students will have to attend other schools. They will remain as admission-worthy as ever. I do not see the need for them to expand their merit aid in order to compete with HYPS.</p>
<p>I am waiting to see what Yale will announce next month. Hopefully the new policy will same me some money for my D’s sophomore year and beyond.</p>
<p>One should act on his own interesting and take the full responsibility. Harvard has the means to extend their FA to middle upper-middle income family kids without sacrify low-income family kids’ FA. The other school dose not necessary to follow if they don’t have the means. If those middle, upper-middle income family kids can’t afford Harvard before, most likely they can’t afford any privat colleges(they basically charged the same) before, if there is no merit money on stake. Good move for Harvard, increase their worthy while selective applicants pool.</p>
<p>
This is based on preassumption that low-income applicants pool are not as qualified as the middle- and upper-middle-income applicants pool. I think Harvard’s new FA and dropping EA action will crowd weak applicants. As it suppose to be for a world class education institution, “only the best should get in”. Hope Yale, Princeton, Stanford, UPenn follow the suite if their Finantial situation allowed.</p>
<p>Parent could be poor or sudeo rich, there is no reason to punish the kids. They should be allowed to compete at ‘even’ field.</p>
<p>I told a friend with a son at H about all this yesterday – she hadn’t heard – and she was literally jumping up and down with excitement.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t think it presumes that at all. It just means that with Harvard attendance now made much more feasible for a whole new group of students, the number of highly-qualified applicants will rise, making the odds of success for any one applicant, including low-income ones, even lower. More good applicants for the same number of slots = lower odds of acceptance, for everyone.</p>
<p>However, I’d be willing to bet that under this new initiative Harvard will not relax its current commitment to recruit and enroll well-qualified low income students and that these will be well represented in the incoming class.</p>
<p>Harvard could make this move without having to recoup the cost elsewhere. The people from Dickinson were worried how they would pay for it. The speculation of even higher list price, with more discounting, seems like one path colleges that are not rich enough to simply cover the costs might take. </p>
<p>However list prices are already so high that many colleges may be reluctant to even show a full cost of say 65,000 for fear of the bad publicity, the implications that the place was running out of money, and the risk that too many students who would not have to pay this price would neer get far enough in learnign of the college to realize that their cost would be much less. Colleges might then try to control the list price, while aggressively attempting to collect more than stated tuition and fees from those who can afford it. This could place an even higher premium on colleges recruiting the children of the truly wealthy (who can make substantial gifts and support expensive financial aid). Harvard and a handful of wealthy colleges may not have to worry about this, but most other places will have to find the money somewhere if they follow H’s lead.</p>
<p>Oh, and I found it amusing to think that Dickinson is really in competition with Harvard, and would now face losing some cross admits because H offers better financial aid. H already had better financial aid, already I’m sure won the vast majority of cross admits, and there were unlikely to be that many cross applicants, let alone cross admits. Dickinson is a fine place, but there are few kids who cannot figure out whether they prefer that or H.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The UCs are already losing students to the Ivies and other well-endowed colleges bcos thier finaid makes attendance the same price (or lower) as a UC. But, Cal’s Chancellor lives in the rarefied dream world called education. The state is facing a $14BN deficit – ain’t no way that more money will be pumped in from the state anytime soon.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don’t think it presumes that at all. It just means that with Harvard attendance now made much more feasible for a whole new group of students, the number of highly-qualified applicants will rise, making the odds of success for any one applicant, including low-income ones, even lower. More good applicants for the same number of slots = lower odds of acceptance, for everyone.
[quote]
If you put it this way, yes I agree. imho, asically the new policies are aiming to weed out ‘weak’ applicants. I’m all for it. But wonder why Donald E. Heller put out comments like this (only mention lower-income kids) for PR? or subconcious? We all know in public you have to speak ‘politic correctness’ otherwise you got ‘crowed on’.</p>
<p>afan, I agree with you. The listed price already so high. These days any private college basically charge the same. Even a public state university charge almost the same for out of state students. But the question is the actual cost really that high? If I have to pay the full freight, I wouldn’t want my kid go any where near these 2nd tier private who charges as much or even higher than top first tier ivies. But may be it just me, my money is hard earned, not inherited or from the captal gain. So if my kid want an ivy or ivy like education, he has to earn it by getting into those elite colleges.</p>
<p>“I told a friend with a son at H about all this yesterday – she hadn’t heard – and she was literally jumping up and down with excitement.”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t jump up and down yet. I haven’t seen any details yet (Is this AGI, what is a typical level of assets etc.) and I tried to get a hold of the financial aid office this week and they were off for the holidays.</p>
<p>This is what I was saying: Harvard’s ploy is an attempt to squish other schools and grab all the best students. The repurcussions could be devastating since most other schools dont have the money to match Harvard. </p>
<p>December 29, 2007
Harvard’s Aid to Middle Class Pressures Rivals
By JONATHAN D. GLATER
Just days after Harvard University announced this month that it would significantly expand financial aid to students from families earning as much as $180,000 a year, William G. Durden, president of Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., got a query from a student’s father, asking whether the college would follow Harvard’s lead.</p>
<p>Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company </p>
<p>Moderator edit: The link has already been posted, and the College Confidential Terms of Service do not allow extensive excerpts from copyrighted materials.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard’s desire to enroll good students is well known and long reported. </p>
<p>[Online</a> Extra: How Harvard Gets its Best and Brightest](<a href=“http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_34/b3998441.htm?chan=search]Online”>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_34/b3998441.htm?chan=search) </p>
<p>But in a typical year, Harvard only offers admission to 2,000 students from all the parts of the world from which it receives applications. Harvard’s entering class size is such that it will only enroll just more than 1,600 students per year. </p>
<p>So all the other colleges in the country still have opportunity to enroll students just like the students they enrolled last year. Harvard will pick up more really strong low-income (low-income compared to Harvard’s rather high median income) students than last year, but to do so it will decline to offer admission to some few students who will enroll elsewhere and be able to pay full freight. No one college will collapse because of what Harvard has done. Some other colleges with large endowments have also announced enhanced financial aid–but some of those are only this month catching up to what Harvard and Princeton announced years ago. There will still be a lot of students able to keep up with the college programs as they now exist at a lot of levels of colleges, and a lot of families that will be both willing and able to pay for the costs of attending those colleges. I do hope the overall effect of this announcement and the responses of other colleges results in more availability of college to low-income students, </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf[/url]”>http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf</a> </p>
<p>as they still are less likely to attend college than much less able students who have higher family incomes. </p>
<p>[BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor](<a href=“http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_27/b3840045_mz007.htm]BW”>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_27/b3840045_mz007.htm)</p>
<p>I agree with Tokenadult. There are far more highly qualified students than can be accommodated by Harvard alone or HYPSMC combined, or HYPSMC + AWSP. That fact alone has turned formerly so so schools into great ones, where the student body is virtually indistinguishable from those of HYPSMC AWSP.</p>
<p>Let me join tokenadult and marite in their view that the number of great high schools students has increased and are now matriculating to a broader universe of colleges than ever before. Strategically, this might begin to be a problem for colleges ranked below Harvard, eg, the non-HYP Ivies as they historically have enjoyed a strong prestige edge over the likes of Wash U, Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, etc. This broadening universe of top colleges and their cadre of highly successful students may be weakening the Ivy brand advantage and, much to the chagrin of the Ivy colleges, spreading the prestige and the quality. </p>
<p>While Harvard (and also YPSM) are unlikely to lose more than a handful of cross-admits to these colleges, when they do, it is frequently due to merit aid issues. Harvard’s financial aid action may be somewhat in response to the success of these other schools in attracting some (still small) number of students away from Harvard. The more interesting battle might be in the second tier of colleges as these colleges use their financial resources, with students and faculty alike, to assert and retain their position.</p>
<p>Let’s add just one other element: Is college admissions, even as practiced by schools like Harvard (or Yale or Stanford) such an exact science that any of them could successfully “skim the cream” off the applicant pool? Would having even more lower and middle income applicants allow them to identify more “stars” than they do already? </p>
<p>I doubt it. Too many of their rejectees go on to do great things…</p>
<p>Is there a risk of greater stratification among colleges? Perhaps, but a great deal of intellectual stratification has already occurred over the past 30 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A very good point. (And something to tell young people this year after admission results are announced.) College admission is not an exact science, and sometimes any of the more desired colleges will pass over a rising star to admit someone with dimmer future prospects. All the applicant can do is to apply to all colleges of interest and compare offers. All the admission offices can do is admit SOMEBODY each year, preferring “better” students as best they know how, and hope everything works out for the best.</p>
<p>
I don’t think so. According to dean of Harvard admission, William R. Fitzsimmons, the applicants they missing are kids from those family with income range from $120k~$180k…Sure by “skim the cream” off the applicants from this pool, there got be some slots lost from low-income and real wealthy. But rest be assured, as far as merit/acadmi goes most of those slots would be from stats at bottom %25…most likely Harvard would gain more applicants from those kids from 120-180 family, previously being attracted to State flagship, or other top or 2nd tier colleges who offer ‘merit based’ scholarship.</p>
<p>
This already happen after Harvard’s new FA come out. I’ve seen a lot of top or near top private institutions already announce they are going to remove loan components or complete free for those family income lower than $400k or $600k. This is basically aimed only help low-come families. Very few is plan to extend their FA to family with income above $120k. This means whatever talents Harvard skimed from middle, upper-middle classes will not get benifit from those other colleges before or after. </p>
<p>Honestly don’t see why people so much focused on low-income kids will lost opportunity to get slot in Harvard or ivy. After all, you still have to be merit qualified to the high standard to get in. Surely those a few low-income kids, who are crowded out of H and H like ivy by new policy, can find a ‘merit-based’ full ride scholarship in those State flagship, or other top or 2nd tier colleges, those slots would’ve ocupied by 120-180 family kids. It just as if those 120-180 family kids, because they have better stats, swap the places with low-income family. Whose to say low-income kids must attend ivy to be successful?</p>
<p>I’ve tried to avoid this thread, I know my POV is not popular here, but I’m going to say it anyway. We’ve been poor, really poor ($15k a year). But I don’t share the perticular sympthy for 'poor’s on this issue. Now we are considered being ‘rich’ (>180k), but not really rich (no boat, no second house, no investment potfolio, no luxurious vacation, etc.) since BOTH of us are still working every day for the bills. I don’t envy the real ‘rich’ (mutual manager, Bill gates, alike, with huge investment potfolio) either. I’ve always consider us ‘working class’, our pay may change through years, but every day we have to show up for the work on time. As far as time and pressure goes, many may not consider it high pay. And only if one of us lost job we are immediately drop to that middle class. </p>
<p>What I believe, live in a society, you have to pay your due. If you don’t, some else has to pay for you. Now some argue that higher income family kids have the advantage becaus they have access to prep school, sat class, etc. thus they have better stats and most likely being accept by ivy. What I believe, prep school, SAT prep classes can only push you that far for a less abled wealthy kid. Besides most well known prep schools nowadays offer full merit scholarships to those intelectual kids, whose family can’t afford the tuition…So if a kid is truely intelect and deligent, he will shine no matter where he is. So if a kid at top of his game, he’ll be in, no matter what SocialEcon class he is from. And if you are a low-income then those ivy will pay for you. Now if both kids are bordline or higher-income kid slightly better than the low-income, IMHO, there is nothing unfair that higher-income kid get edge over low-income kid. Why, because the higher-income kid’s parent or grand parents had paid the ‘due’ (ie. prep, sat, etc.) for him, for whatever he is lessable compare to a low-income kids, who may be slightly able but not a genius either…What I see is low-income kids already got suitable helps from this society.</p>
<p>Nowadays with globalized economic and high technowlegy, its not un-common that a profetional WORKING family with double income exceed $120k, (easily > $180k for high tech, it, doctor, lawer, etc.). I won’t call these people rich, because they still have to show up on work every day, not living off huge invesment portfolio or trust fund. Their money is hard earned. Most of them don’t have an ivy education, but they are intelectual and deligent, otherwise they weren’t climb to this position on SE ladder. Now they want an ivy education for their kids, they pay the ‘due’ for their sometime ‘lessabled’ kids to SAT class, prep school, etc. Once their kids accepted, should they be ‘punished’ to pay ‘full freight’? Its really what moral (may be not a better word??) standard you want to promote for this society. To me looks like intelectual/deligent people get punished by the running policy. So what’s incentive to be intelectual/deligent hard working people? Should there be some rewarding?</p>
<p>
This could be the best approach for both side. And believe or not after a few years, those professional adcoms will find a new balanced system.</p>
<p>One thing I’d like to see is increased standardization in the application process. It’s obvious the old “2 safeties - 3 matches - 2 reaches” formula is impractical given the super competition kids face. The GC at our hs says he will no longer recommend that for students interested in attending a selective school. The equation that is emerging seems to be that colleges consider a huge number of applicants and applicants apply to a huge number of schools. The common app is a good instrument. I’d like it used by everyone and even the supplements brought into a less arduous format. Seniors in high school should not have to put such enormous effort into applications. I think the situation is truly “advantaging the advantaged” in that the kids with more support via parents and better funded high schools are in the best shape in putting out lots of well crafted applications. This an edge that most certainly is driven by SES.</p>
<p>mammal,</p>
<p>I wonder if things are more competitive now, or whether:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>expectations are higher - more folks want the “best”, at least as measured by USNWR?</p></li>
<li><p>whether the process has become more random, i.e. less predictable?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Either way, is the common app and less work on the part of the applicants the answer? Maybe. But I’d rather see a better job on the part of colleges and their admissions folks in communicating what is going on in a realistic manner. Some examples, within the spirit of this discussion thread and with no effort to pick on Harvard:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>From Harvard’s website: “One quarter of the families receiving need-based scholarship assistance from Harvard have incomes greater than $130,000.” Great. Now tell us the rest of the story: How many kids in college at the same time to get this aid? Does this mean if I only have one kid attending I can get aid?</p></li>
<li><p>“We do seek students who achieve at a high level, and most admitted students rank in the top 10-15% of their graduating classes.” Does this mean my kid, at the 10% mark, has a good chance? (yea, right!)</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Why any elite college would post FAQ answers like this on their admissions website is beyond me. Is the goal of such “information” to inform? Or mislead?</p>
<p>You tell me.</p>