Consolidated: New financial aid policies Harvard and Yale

Parent Cafe
341

<p>NMD:</p>

<p>I agree that one can be misled by the bald information posted on college websites. The problem is what else to provide, besides saying that depending on specific circumstances, students with families making more that $130k may receive financial aid. Should it include a laundry list of such circumstances? more than one child in college; one child in college plus one child in private school; parents still paying off student debts; family members having high medical bills, etc… The problem with laundry lists is that they become inflexible and can also be misleading.</p>

<p>As for the 10-15% range, is it misleading? One would assume that the students in Harvard’s bottom half were not in their high school top 10% but were admitted because of other considerations or “hooks” (whether legitimate or not is another question entirely).</p>

342

<p>I don’t think Harvard is misleading you, though perhaps they could have said more. I fully believe that need based scholarships exist for incomes over $130,000. I haven’t run the calculators, but don’t forget that need based aid could mean $1000 a year or $40,000 a year. It’s not all or nothing. As to the 10% - Harvard accepts a lot of kids from prep school and exam based magnet schools where indeed the level of achievement is very, very high indeed quite aways down the rank list.</p>

343

<p>

Without any hooks (legacy, URM, athelets, etc.), you would be delusional to think your kid, at the 10% mark, has a good chance. Well maybe depends on what HS he is in. It was said, without hook, your stats really need to be at their top 25% range to consider you have a good chance.</p>

<p>Or you have to use ‘reverse deduction’(?correct me may the wrong term?):

  • “If you are ranked out of 15% of your graduating classes. You are mostly like no chance. So save yourself some money, save us time, don’t even bother.” </p>

<p>The wide range of their stats + ‘our goal is to build a diversity class’ + large applicants pool = huge wriggle room. In reality, there is no clear cut standard, may be they have their own unsaid rules to follow. Yet you can’t say its right or wrong, because on they have proven successful record (judged by themselves that they got so much endowment, judged by public so many parents and kids aspiring to get into it).</p>

344

<p>

Actually I heard from the info session (Harvard or MIT) they have families income at $160k got some FA.</p>

345

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that’s the most likely explanation of a student who is not in the top 10 percent of his class still getting into Harvard: it means that his high school is highly selective, so being in the middle of the pack there still shows readiness for challenging college studies.</p>

346

<p>

</p>

<p>With all due respect to the poster of this comment, who, among these low and middle income students Harvard is now trying to attract, even knows about hooks? Why should a reader find it necessary to read between the lines? If we informed adults must rely in inference to interpret such things, then we’ve found the problem. And yes “may be they have their own unsaid rules to follow.” is a big part of the problem and why it seems random.</p>

<p>So who is delusional, ANJM, those who read H’s postings at face value, or those who interpret, infer and use “reverse deduction”?</p>

<p>My comments were in response to mammal’s earlier post about needing to apply to so many schools, and I think replies such as ANJM’s confirm the problem. </p>

<p>We should not be forced to “interpret” the FAQ answers and other information on a college’s website IF the purpose of the website is to inform. Unfortunately, the purpose seems to be to “market”, to offer hope when it is not justified, and to get as many applicants as possible. This is why so many parents, students and even GCs seem frustrated. Not everyone reads “A is for Admissions” or any of the other “secrets of the elites” style books. These folks are not "delusional’, just normal.</p>

347

<p>

</p>

<p>Rewrite:
Whose (sic) to say middle-income kids must attend ivy to be successful?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t see why having to pay full freight (as I do) is being “punished.” Who is forcing the kids to attend an expensive full-freight school? </p>

<p>And in case I’m labelled as a heartless super-rich person, I don’t have a second home; right now, I don’t even have a car, I’ve incurred a huge debt to pay full freight for my two kids, I’ve worked all my life as has my H, and we both expect to work until we are 70 (possibly even beyond that). And I’m not *****ing about it or about low SES kids. If I wanted to save money and maybe retire earlier, I could have sent my two kids to our state university. That was a choice I made. Nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to send them to expensive schools at full freight.</p>

<p>Everybody should pay their due? But not when it comes to paying for college, right?</p>

348

<p>If the “top 10%” implied standard is real, high schools that assign + and - grades, do not weight AP classes or anything else, and who include PE, band, treble choir, etc. grades in class ranking are eliminating some of their most academically gifted students from consideration for admission to Harvard.</p>

349

<p>Yes, who is to say that anyone must attend any particular college to be successful? I applied only to my state university, in my day, was admitted and paid full list price (heavily subsidized, to be sure) by working my way through school. Today my alma mater, with a higher but still subsidized list price, would probably give a full ride to someone with the test scores I had back then. It didn’t even occur to me to apply to Harvard. I thought my family couldn’t afford Harvard. (Even the application fee felt like a significant amount of money to me.) I had one high school classmate who applied to Harvard, who was not offered admission. A friend in our school district’s other high school, whom I knew from parties with junior high classmates, applied to Harvard, was admitted, and attended. I doubt her family was rich–possibly more prosperous than mine, but not by a lot–but her family valued education, and I’m sure her parents paid whatever the expected family contribution was at that time. Lots of students in my generation went to lots of different colleges, and I know plenty of people in my generation who never went to college at all or never finished the college they started. </p>

<p>All I ask of general social policy is that opportunities be expanded for high-ability, low-income learners, </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf[/url]”>http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf&lt;/a&gt; </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>especially those from families unfamiliar with higher education. What state universities do will probably reach and help the largest number of such learners, but Harvard seems to me to be doing the right things to nudge the system in the direction of thinking about such learners more.</p>

350

<p>According to Harvard’s latest Common Data Set submissions to U.S. News (in this year’s massive U.S. News guidebook), 84 percent of admitted Harvard students reported a class rank. Of those, 95 percent were in the top 10 percent of their class and 100 percent in the top 25 percent of their class. </p>

<p>But we know NOTHING about the actual class rank of students who didn’t report a class rank, really.</p>

351

<p>

Suppose they have internet access? Suppose they heard of CC? Suppose they’ve browsered CC multiple threads? Plenty of posts there shown, quite a few people(kids included) know how to take advantage of ‘hooks’. In this infomation age, if they don’t have the ability to access infomation via internet, how do you expect them to handle college (any college) education?</p>

<p>

You could be right, people shouldn’t be expect to read things between lines. Especially those ‘naive’ kids. </p>

<p>By all means my ‘delusional’ is used as sarcastic. I always read things between lines, and sometimes conjunct things together to get my own conclusions. Sometimes my conclusion complete wrong. But most time they are not far fetched ones…In our case if my kid is ranked out of 15% in his class(a good public HS), or his stats lower than top middle 50% ~ top 25%, I would not encourage him to apply that school, I know we have no ‘hook’ if anything its a reverse hook ORM. Best to concentrate his energy somewhere else…even in that range, it is still a ‘crap’ shoot, like one of adcom posted in one thread at ‘college addmission’ forum.</p>

<p>

I never said that, and so far I’ve seen non posts in this threads have said that. I consider myself pretty successful (you might have different opinion) with a CUNY(grad). All they said is middle-income kids shouldn’t be shut-out by the old FA policy, as proved by claim of dean of H addmission office, they never applied because they thought they could not afford…On a contract, I’ve seen plenty of concerns about low-income kids being crowded out by this new H FA policy, thats where my argument comes.</p>

<p>

Nop. Especially TRUE at college. Every body pay college due either with their ‘natual intelegency’ or money (some cases this could be translated to ‘cultured intelegency’ as some claimed middle- or upper-middle class kids have a leg up on this). I think we could agree that every one has these two ‘assets’ more or less. What I think fair is </p>

<p>Highly intelegent low-income kids pay his ivy college due with his high ‘intelegency’ - got free ivy education.</p>

<p>An “less able students higher-income family” pay his ivy college due with ‘culturad intelegency’ = money + ‘not so high at intelegency’.</p>

<p>Strictly speaking, in my idea society, the college education should be ‘free’ to all kids. All kids compete the slot in top college from the leveled field based on their merit, intelectual only. No other factors such as money be factored in the process.</p>

<p>But in a limited resourc society, every one should be allowed to access those high demanded resource after they paid their due. Money should compensate to certain extend, just like the AA or other hooks (one may consider hooks as means to pay the due) can compensate to certain extend…No cry of ‘its unfair SE advantaged kids get a leg up’. After all their parents or grand parents had paid their due, this is just small reward…And don’t forget under the new FA policy: a middle and upper-middle class family still have to pay 10% of cost even with a high intelegent kid vs. low-income (<$60k) kid, who would’ve got it free…the low-income family kids got enough help at college education as today in a limited resource society.</p>

352

<p>A teacher from my S’s high school posted some statistics last year. The high school has over 40% students on F/R lunch. All the students in his AP classes had their own computers, and many had several at home. 2/3 of the students in his College Prep classes (a misnomer, if ever there was one) did not have a computer. The school does have a computer lab; but the school closes when classes are over, making the computers inaccessible. Some of the students work 20 hours or more per week. They don’t have the time (or money) for SAT prep classes, enrichment programs, etc… </p>

<p>What do you mean by “paid their due”? Who? The middle-class kids whose parents worked hard, to be sure, but have spent most of their time and their parents’ money brushing their resumes or the kids who worked 20 hours a week and don’t even have a computer at home?</p>

<p>Anybody who envies the free ride students from low SES families get should consider trading places with those families.</p>

353

<p>I am with marite in this discussion. If I understand correctly, aNJm is advocating that some families or students who have “paid their due” are more deserving of a H education than low SES students/families. As a H parent, I value and appreciate the economic and cultural diversity of the students that my DD has the fortune to interact with at H. I think that H needs to be praised for creating a very diverse student body.</p>

354

<p>Link to Boston Globe story by Linda K. Wertheimer: </p>

<p>[As</a> wealthy colleges eliminate loans, others feel pressure to compete - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/12/31/colleges_struggle_over_aid_deals/]As”>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/12/31/colleges_struggle_over_aid_deals/)</p>

355

<p>From the Boston Globe article posted by Tokenadult:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Previously? Does this mean that it is no longer the case today? Contributions of $3,850? Is that really so?</p>

<p>Schools do make a difference between family contributions and student contributiona. Unless more changes are made, the minimum contribution by a student to Harvard is $5,550 because of the minimum summer earning expectation of $1,700. </p>

<p>For what it is worth, the minimum contribution represents a much greater burden to very low income families and students. The combination of a zero EFC at the family level, the difficulty and need to generate income to cover the minimum contributions, the income tax on non-excludable financial aid, and the possible increase in the student EFC can represent substantial hurdles for most students on a … free ride.</p>

<p>Of course, there will always be people who consider that the low-income family kids got enough help at college education as today in a limited resource society and that this society should choose between “intelegent kid vs. low-income kid who would’ve got it free. (Sic)”</p>

356

<p>Hi, xiggi, I get what you’re asking, but I’m not sure if any of the Harvard website has been updated enough to answer your specific question. A few years ago when Harvard announced its Financial Aid Initiative, the big deal, as I think you are aware, was reducing the expected FAMILY contribution to zero for a broad range of incomes, but indeed there was still an expected student contribution for all incomes. Every student who goes to Harvard goes with some personal buy-in. I’m not entirely sure what the most updated policy is for students and their student contributions to the cost of attending Harvard. </p>

<p>You are quite correct that all these issues are higher-impact for lower-income families, because in many low-income families, sixteen-year-olds are expected to be “breadwinners” for the family, not just family-subsidized professional students. I think Harvard’s latest offered figures (and even the previously offered figures) are reasonable and generous for the middle quintile income range in the United States, which is the range I know best, but even if things aren’t perfectly adjusted yet at Harvard I trust they will be soon, because Harvard has some very astute economists analyzing the effects of its financial aid programs.</p>

357

<p>Regardless of where anyone stands on the issue, it would help foster a more pleasant sharing of ideas if we’d all lose the “sic.” It’s cruel to mock another poster, especially one who obviously didn’t grow up speaking English.</p>

358

<p>Are low-income kids not er, “intelegent”?</p>

<p>A more likely scenario is that the bottom quarter of the student pool at Harvard in terms of academics is made up of donors’ kids, facbrats and legacies, recruited athletes for whom the coaches are willing to advocate (athletes who have the academic profile to be admitted on their own not receiving the same help from the coaches), students who shine in some extra-academic pursuit such as the arts, etc… I’d like to see a study that equates low income with low intelligence.</p>

359

<p>Anyway, as you can see in part by looking at the Harvard NCAA self-study </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.college.harvard.edu/deans_office/NCAASelfStudy.pdf[/url]”>http://www.college.harvard.edu/deans_office/NCAASelfStudy.pdf&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>Harvard acknowledges that some students who devote serious time and effort to perfecting skills in a sport or a performing art won’t have time to boost their SAT scores as much, and thus may below the usual high Harvard average. Harvard reasons–and who can argue with this?–that a student who has time taken away from book academic work by demanding extracurriculars may have academic potential that doesn’t show up on the student’s score reports. </p>

<p>Polling data suggests that most Americans are more impressed, other things being equal, by a college applicant who gets a given level of scores from a low-income family than from a high-income family. It just has to be easier to study and concentrate in a more comfortable living environment, and to learn well in a well funded and staffed rather than poorly funded and staffed elementary or secondary school. Most Americans approve of policies of giving an admission boost, other things being equal, to low-income college applicants. (See </p>

<p>[Amazon.com:</a> America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education: Books: Richard D. Kahlenberg](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Untapped-Resource-Low-Income-Education/dp/0870784854/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Untapped-Resource-Low-Income-Education/dp/0870784854/) </p>

<p>for citations to the polling data.) Most colleges claim to give such a boost to low-income applicants. But so far most studies of college admission decisions finds no evidence that there is any special consideration for low-income applicants at the great majority of colleges in the United States. Harvard, on the advice of economists, </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>is trying to do something about that. I hope other colleges do too.</p>

360

<p>so that’s the explanation for the sics, stickershock. I thought it just Jersey. Smileyface.</p>