<p>Nicholas Lemann has an interesting take on emerging trends in US higher ed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
College costs so much because people are paying for unstated social goals.... Research libraries and philosophy departments can’t possibly make money; they require subsidies from business schools and biomedical-research labs, but that drives tuition higher than it would be if universities dropped their money-losing functions....</p>
<p>Where higher education is actually underpriced is in the top-tier schools. That may sound offensive, but price is determined by what people are willing to pay, and the top twenty-five or so schools in the country could charge even more than they do.... [F]rom 1989 through at least 2017, every President of the United States will have had a degree from either Harvard or Yale.... That could be a three-decade accident, or it may be a sign of something lasting—the educational version of the inequality surge, elevating “one per cent” institutions far above the rest.... </p>
<p>In higher education, the United States may be on its way to becoming more like the rest of the world, with a small group of schools controlling access to life membership in the </p>
<p>I remember Mini speaking to this years ago. That some of the elite were undercutting their product on price, by tens of thousands because many would pay that very elevated price. Hence, the very wealthy that attend are getting a deal, correct me if I am wrong mini.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly he put the price tag in the $80K+ region and that was several years ago.</p>
<p>While it is true that HYP could fill the rolls with wealthy students if they doubled or even tripled tuition, it is less clear if they could maintain the quality of the student body at these prices or if they would return to the days when George W. Bush could get into Harvard on family name alone.</p>
<p>You also have to remember that the elite schools also collect a lot of donations, which they can use to subsidize student costs. Supposedly, even those paying full freight aren’t really covering the full cost of their educations.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think Harvard should raise its prices–but it could openly auction off a couple of seats each year (to people meeting minimum standards, of course). They do it now, of course, but it’s not open.</p>
<p>And I hate to have to point out that George W. went to Yale, not Harvard.</p>
<p>GWB went to Yale College, but he also went to HBS.</p>
<p>I’ll admit that I haven’t read the article, but it seems to me like an interesting question because, as has been suggested, there are at least two, probably three, distinct classes of families sending their kids to Ivies and Ivy peers.</p>
<p>One class is the spectacularly rich, who pay full price, and could and probably would pay more if it cost more.</p>
<p>A second class is highly paid working professionals, who pay full price because they have to, but are paying it out of savings accrued over their children’s lives. For them, raising the price surely would hurt.</p>
<p>A third class is families that receive need-based aid, and it is, of course, a class with a lot of families in it. For them, I think, an elite education is a little bit like an expensive prescription medication (to someone with health insurance, I mean). They never really have to pay attention to the retail price, because they’re never going to have to pay it.</p>
<p>Half of what makes a top tier school top-tier are the capabilities of the student body.</p>
<p>Maybe top tier schools should be paying kids of a top calibre to come to their schools, you know, as an income, not just a matching grant. That way a top kid can graduate HYPwhatever with 80K in the bank, because their skills made the for-profit institution attractive to the “payola student” and lucrative for the for-profit institution. </p>
<p>Maybe there should also be “professional for-profit students” who just occupy the university to help the paying students feel more gifted and to help them raise their grades via the boost they get from a group project.</p>
<p>The idea there is a gap between tuition and actual cost to educate isn’t limited to “elite” institutions. The majority of private and public colleges will tell you there is a gap, and they will even quantify it when they send you their Annual Fund solicitation to encourage you to make a tax-deductible tuition supplement toward your child’s education. (This isn’t even unique to higher ed. K-12 schools fundraise to bridge the gap, too!)</p>
<p>The real question is why the students from the elite 25 are over-valued, in hiring, in becoming POTUS. There wouldn’t be an inequality surge if students who went to the state flagships were elevated in corporate America, in government, in academia in the same fashion as those who go to the elites. </p>
<p>As others have pointed out, there are a significant number of students who can attend these elites only because they come from wealthy or well-connected families (or both). They are children of politicians, of corporate leaders, or Hollywood children, etc. Would they have even gotten into a state flagship that looks only at GPA and SAT scores? </p>
<p>The problem is that ‘society’ for lack of a better term over values an education acquired more through money than brains.</p>
I think there are such people, but I don’t think there are as many of them as you might think. Yale rejects most legacy applicants, and it says that it also rejects most children of its biggest donors. So it appears to relax standards for the very rich, but not completely. And there couldn’t be that many of them, or the SAT averages would go down.</p>
<p>Clearly the so-called elites do make exceptions. Naviance from D’s high school shows one admit to Northwestern with a 27 ACT and a 3.2 GPA. No idea who or why - highly unlikely to be a recruited athlete to a D1 school from a HS with a wide reputation for its sucky athletic teams. :)</p>
<p>Yes – I think there is an INsignificant number of students attending elites because they come from wealthy and/or connected families. In general, they are pretty visible, but there just aren’t that many of them. And the number who wouldn’t at least be in the running for a space on their own is even smaller.</p>
<p>What would be the point in having elite colleges charge more when they already have multi-billion dollar endowments? The richest colleges would just get richer.</p>
<p>If you felt that you really paid the true cost of your education, you might be less inclined to donate money to the institution in the future. I’m not going to give money to Ford so they can give other people discounts.</p>
<p>I think the point would be (not that I agree with it, given the pitfalls of financial aid process) that more endowment money would be available to low income students, because the amount of endowment money going to subsidize wealthy (according to elite school definition) students would be reduced or eliminated.</p>
<p>I’m in favor of very high sticker prices and very generous need-based financial aid. I’d support Harvard raising its sticker price by tens of thousands as long as the burden fell on those who could manage it. I believe it would have a minimal effect on applications and enrollment. We can test this theory out just by waiting a few years…the COA is going to be $80k plus before long.</p>
<p>wait until you start making 151K a year (150K is a threshold for Harvard financial aid initiative) and see if you still think it is fair for you to pay 80K a year for Harvard education.</p>
<p>Also, the way colleges determine what you can afford to pay does not entirely level the playing field. Just ask small business owners or someone who finally got high-paying job after years of unemployment or underemployment.</p>
<p>I don’t really think elite schools are a cause of inequality like people here are suggesting. On the other hand, people here are also very quick to point out that where you go to school doesn’t determine your future success. </p>
<p>I think elite schools are just more reflective of the inequality, not a cause of it themselves. We have to remember that 75% of the people at the top schools come from the richest 25% of families.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure if Harvard raised its tuition, it would also raise the amount of people receiving financial aid.</p>