<p>I think that:</p>
<p>Cornell should standardize a family's assets and ability to contribute, according to where they live.</p>
<p>A more complex version of Z = (x - mu) / sigma
If the cost of living in Podunk, Wyoming is 30,000 (made up number) a year and your parents are making 40,000 you are in good shape there.</p>
<p>But what about the family that makes 40,000 in Los Angeles, where the cost of living is 50,000 (made up number) you are not in the same situation.</p>
<p>And with Median Home prices drastically different depending on geographic location, a 250,000 dollar house in Podunk, Wyoming is very different from a 250,000 dollar house in Los Angeles.</p>
<p>So while on paper these two families make the same amount, and own the same dollar amount of property, they should in no way be obligated to pay the same amount for tuition.</p>
<p>I don't think this is such a hard concept, and I don't think it's an unfair one either. I think context is of absolute importance, and I highly highly doubt that the current financial aid policies reflect something so basic as this.</p>
<p>So yes, while we were not obligated to attend Cornell, that shouldn't limit Cornell in trying to improve their policies in order to be more competitive with peer schools. If Cornell sticks with this attitude, with massive inflation, and rising costs of living, Cornell will lose plenty of great students to lower tier schools who can provide Merit Based Scholarships.</p>