<p>Sorry, Marite, I still think the income tax annalogy is quite apt. As it stands, the financial aid model imposes a ridiculously low price on truly wealthy hedge fund managers and Kennedys and Trumps. I may pay the same percent as them in taxes but they certainly pay more in absolute terms. I don't enjoy my taxes but I consider them fair. College tuition should be restructured completely and the curent single "full freight" notion abandoned. Ironically, overall income from tuition would probably rise considerably.</p>
<p>The difference between tuition and income tax is that, in theory at least, the richer you are, the more you benefit from having a strong law & order government. If you're Bill Gates, you have an immense amount to lose if the society stopped running according to predictable laws. That's why you pay a share of your income all the way up to infinity.</p>
<p>Tuition is, no matter how you slice it, fee for service. I've said that I favor charging the truly rich the full, unsubsidized cost of educating the student; that is, 1/6500th of the operating cost of the college. Last I heard, that was in the 70k-80k range. But asking them to pay more than that is not justifiable in my book, even for Bill Gates' daughter. I don't think he has the obligation to pay for more than he is getting. On the other hand, you can ASK him to subsidize the other students, and he just might say yes.</p>
<p>Then why not fee for service at all income levels? Does a pair of socks cost Bill Gates the same as the store clerk who sells them to him? Yes. Why then does the store clerk get charged far less by HYP to send her child there? Because these universities are not-for-profit organizations (I believe) that were established to benefit our society. That is their charter. It is appropriate for them to charge the store clerk less and to charge Bill Gates way more. It's also appropriate for them to charge me more than the store clerk. But it is not appropriate for them to charge me the same as they charge Bill Gates. That's my line and I'm sticking to it.</p>
<p>In that case, you would have an actual tax to support all Universities.</p>
<p>It's a really interesting middle ground they occupy.</p>
<p>altho I posted earlier that the Other Five did not have to compete, I'm now hedging my bets particularly with ED. </p>
<p>For example, a $175k student/family is (practically) full pay at every need-based college. And, while that student might really prefer Brown/Dartmouth/Columbia/Penn for reasons of better "fit," they would have to think long and hard before submitting an ED to a school where their out-of-pocket would be $40k+ vs. playing the H-Lotto where their annual out-of-pocket would be only $18k. If the Other Five don't do something, their ED pools may change. Hmmmmmm.</p>
<p>Sorry, mammall. The private colleges are private. They are not supported by your tax dollars. And yes, the same pair of socks cost the same whether it is bought by Bill Gates or the guy you makes $7 an hour. It costs the same to educate the student on full ride as it does the student on full fare. </p>
<p>If you want to complain, complain about the fact that attending my flagship university is going to cost more than attending Harvard for a lot of students. Their families are supporting it through their tax dollars.</p>
<p>And since your kid got admitted to Yale, perhaps you can redirect your concern to Yale?</p>
<p>I don't really understand the praise that has been sent harvard's way for such a plan, that frankly costs them diddly in the scheme of the amounts of money they work with. Given that at most ivies, only between 40-60% of the students even are eligible for aid, it seems reasonable to me that the ivies with smaller endowments should for the most part be able to manage a similar policy (as evidenced by Penn's announcement; kudos to them for doing this right after i'll graduate <em>sigh</em>), especially since only a very minimal amount of the endowment actually figures in to the university's day to day spending anyway.</p>
<p>I see no reason why Harvard should not simply abolish tuition all together, such a policy would cost only a very small fraction of the interest alone on the endowment last year. The only reasons I see are either greed in spite of the school's non-profit status, or pressure from the other ivies that would be unable to swing such a policy. The ivies in particular definately talk amongst themselves regarding things like aid policies and what all, which is how policies like no-merit aid, which are irrespective of the athletic conference affiliation, arise.</p>
<p>Nice to think of $22 million on top of $98 million is "diddly."</p>
<p>when one considers that their endowment grew by something like 6 billion last year alone, I think it an appropriate approximation</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure I agree with that interesteddad. In my experience, it is the middle and upper middle income people (who can not afford their fafsa efc) who need and use the merit offers. Those people don't bother to apply to the need only schools listed above. Even if the student got in they couldn't go, so what's the point?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What happens to Merit Aid U. when Harvard eliminates tuition altogether?</p>
<p>Harvard loses an insignificant number of students to Merit Aid U or lower tier Ivies. The schools Harvard competes with for students (YPSM) are sufficiently well endowed to match any tuition discounts.</p>
<p>Harvard's own analysis, which prompts this year's changes, is that Harvard loses applicants to colleges with lower list prices (or lower net prices after "merit" scholarships), because some of those students never have even applied to Harvard in earlier years. It will be interesting to see how many applications from new sources Harvard receives this year with its single-deadline admission system, the recent announcement on improved financial aid, and its joint outreach program with Princeton and Virginia. </p>
<p>University</a> of Virginia, Harvard, & Princeton Admission Presentations </p>
<p>The</a> Harvard Crimson :: Opinion :: New Possibilities in the Post-Early Admissions Era</p>
<p>token:</p>
<p>I am really surprised at your post. Thers is no analysis by H here, there is just pure conjecture. How can they KNOW that they lose apps to colleges with lower list prices. Did they survey students who did NOT apply? If so, where is the DATA? Puhleeze?</p>
<p>TokenAdult,</p>
<p>I have to admit that I've never fully grasped Harvard's "point" in eliminating EA. I don't see at all how it "advantages the advantaged." EA allows students with less financial means to "test the waters" and perhaps nail a first choice option and avoid spending quite a significant sum in test score reports and application fees at a broad list of schools. I submit that the necessity of hedging bets and producing a large number of applications -- which the elimination of EA is causing -- requires a good deal of family support and school resources. When EA is not an option, these two factors -- family and well-funded high school guidance offices -- matter more, not less. EA may have seemed like the tool of the "advantaged" for the same reason as the SAT -- higher income kids come from homes with better educated parents, books, etc. This breeds high aspirations. Eliminating EA won't help. In fact, it may very well serve to further "advantage the advantaged." This whole business reminds me of economics. Interventions are a delicate business.</p>
<p>Harvard is very commendable for it's stated goal of reaching out to students who would otherwise not contemplate an elite college education. The problem is that college is not the juncture to perform an intervention in a student's life. That should be happening much earlier -- preschool, kindergarten, elementary school. Harvard can probably best help the situation simply by turning out talented and well trained public policy graduates who will contribute their talents to improving early education in our society. Perhaps it could even offer merit scholarships to draw top talent into these sort of fields?</p>
<p>" have to admit that I've never fully grasped Harvard's "point" in eliminating EA. I don't see at all how it "advantages the advantaged." EA allows students with less financial means to "test the waters" and perhaps nail a first choice option and avoid spending quite a significant sum in test score reports and application fees at a broad list of schools. "</p>
<p>The students that I think that Harvard's stopping EA will help are the low income, first generation college, students who aren't at prep schools or other top high schools. These students don't have the sophisticated GCs to tell them about EA or the advantages to applying to more than a couple of colleges. These students also would not be applying to a dozen colleges, but possibly just to Harvard, state flagship and nearby mediocre state U.</p>
<p>By eliminating EA, Harvard makes more room for those students. How? Any student who previously was accepted EA was taking up a spot that a RD student could have gotten. In my area, I've seen stronger applicants turned down RD who were very similar to less strong (but still definitely Harvard qualified and exceptional compared to the total pool of students applying to colleges all over) applicants who were accepted EA.</p>
<p>Also, by eliminating EA, Harvard has more time to reach out to the low income, first gen students that it wants to attract more of.</p>
<p>token,</p>
<p>I re-read your second link twice and can't see anything that supports your statement about H losing apps based on price. The first link has no admissions information at all. Your statement makes little sense w/r/t merit aid, since one does not know about merit awards until far later in the admissions cycle (unless you count a merit award from an EA school, of which there are few and which are often slower to announce merit awards anyway...ED does not pose an issue, since one is bound.) </p>
<p>Nonetheless, BB's comment about the "data" strikes me as terribly naive. Does BB really think a college would release its dearest competitive data to the public, and therefore competitors? Or does BB not realize admissions offices are key parts of the "business" side of higher ed, and therefore competing, often vigorously, with their so called peers? (certainly the DOJ antitrust folks believe this. That's why they entered into a settlement in 1991. Antitrust</a> Compliance: Yale Vice Presiden and General Counsel)</p>
<p>
[quote]
This whole business reminds me of economics. Interventions are a delicate business.
[/quote]
Yes they are.</p>
<p>I think the Harvard 10%AGI plan is going to have an enormous impact. They've essentially redefined what middle class is considered for college funding purposes. It wasn't politically correct to shed tears for the family earning $120K before the announcement. But now the big name in higher ed is giving the green light to showing empathy for those squeezed families. There is already a ripple effect, and that likely will spread.</p>
<p>Thank you, Northstar, I get it now about the EA stance. However, I still don't see why an outreach to explain how to do EA to both high schools and students my not have been just as effective. Of course, I'm biased in favor of EA having a D who was just accepted at high reach school in that process. I'd hate to see it go away as an option for D2.</p>
<p>Avery and Hoxby have published various peer-reviewed articles and some widely read working papers about the behavior of college applicants, and everyone reading along at home is welcome to consult their writings. Harvard's dean of admissions explicitly refers to their work in his June 2007 opinion article I cited above about how Harvard is changing its student outreach, and I am sure there are additional details of their research specific to how Harvard can improve its outreach that are internal memos, written for Harvard and not shared with Harvard's peer universities. I have mentioned in other threads that I have been reading </p>
<p>a book about how low-income students of any given level of ability STILL are much less likely to go to college than higher-income students of lower levels of ability. Harvard doesn't want to soften its admission standards, but it does want to increase its enrollment of low-income students* and thus Harvard has been doing a lot of research on this issue since former president Larry Summers announced the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative. </p>
<p>*Compared to the current group of enrollees, a lot of families are "low-income" (below the income median) for Harvard. Many of those families have formerly not believed that they were eligible for enough financial aid to make Harvard affordable--you can see comments like that in all the threads about Harvard's announcement posted on CC. Some families ASSUME what their financial aid offers will be without even turning in an application.</p>
<p>token,</p>
<p>Your most recent post makes more sense. And yes, Hoxby does some great work, although, like many economists, she finds effects that are statistically valid yet irrelevant for individuals. (I'd be glad to expound on this if one cares)</p>
<p>I do wonder though, how well H understands consumer behavior. Is the decision among low income folks to not apply due to a misunderstanding about affordability, or due to an accurate assessment regarding admissions prospects? After all, for a low income family, the "cost" to apply is non-trivial, whether in actual cash outlay or in opportunity cost in getting a waiver. Then there are concerns about fit and so on.</p>