Free Tuition War?

<p>There's a breaking story about free</a> tuition at Yale's music school - a generous donation has allowed them to eliminate tuition. Yep... if you get accepted, you can attend with zero tuition.</p>

<p>What do you think will happen with the number of applicants to Yale's music school? And what will their yield rate on acceptances look like?</p>

<p>Could this be the first shot in a "free tuition" war, in which philanthropists boost the fortunes of their favorite department at their alma mater? In the face of such competition, might some schools have to use their endowment to eliminate tuition or offer greatly enhanced financial aid to avoid losing their best prospects?</p>

<p>I don't think they will use their endowments to do anything other than perhaps eliminate the need for loans/low income at more institutions. I do think it is an amazing thing when benefactors put their money to a specific department......I mean the talent pool coming out of the selections will be amazing. I am wondering if there will be a special adcom who reads these folders.......perhaps the benefactor? This is most interesting to contemplate. How many students will the program be taking? Will the department become larger? Is part of the money to hire additional faculty? What a wonderful opportunity for the deparment.</p>

<p>I'm wondering how our Music school is regarding the news--probably worried about losing good prospects, I'm sure.</p>

<p>I agree with hazmat that a more appealing use of money for most schools and most benefactors will be endowments that eliminate loans (as opposed to giving a free ride to all). Even though the free ride can have wonderful effects on app volume, app quality, and yield, it takes a lot of money to give everyone a free ride into perpetuity at anything but a small school.</p>

<p>I'd be surprised if the benefactor would become involved in the admissions process. Even though much of the work is entrusted to admissions staff, I believe it is widely (and properly) regarded as a process where academic standards are decided by faculty. Especially in a music school, where applicants are given auditions.</p>

<p>When I say involved in the admissions process I am meaning, observe the auditions. I know nothing about the benefactors myself.....perhaps others, more informed can share info here.</p>

<p>I am not sure about my recollection about this but a few years back I think Princeton was considering doing this for the entire undergraduate student body.</p>

<p>I have a concern about the huge donations to the HYP's of the world. These universities already have huge endowments and accept the very cream of the crop into their excellent undergrad programs. What incremental impact on improving the instiution do these donations have??</p>

<p>Wouldn't they have a far greater impact if they were given to the many fine underendowed colleges and universities that many other very fine students choose to attend?</p>

<p>I know, why would a wealthy Princeton grad bequeth millions to a college like a UMass, Drexel or Allegheny? I suppose that practically there is little reason why from a "loyalty" perspective. However if the bequest was to improve higher education for future generations, I think the answer is a bit murkier.</p>

<p>Are you thinking the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? They are addressing education as you mention. Is this it? As to why donate to a school that "doesn't need" it is usually out of gratitude for an opportunity afforded the benefactor and they wish to pass that along to others.</p>

<p>Yale's music program is a graduate only program. Truth is that better schools already provide tuition waivers for many grad students. It is totally expected in the sciences, and I understand from Marite that many humanities programs do the same.</p>

<p>So, is this REALLY news, or a good way to get free publicity?</p>

<p>Free? I understand your point but when a benefactor gives BIG BUX attaching the word free makes my chuckle.</p>

<p>"Wouldn't they have a far greater impact if they were given to the many fine underendowed colleges and universities that many other very fine students choose to attend?"</p>

<p>One of the reasons wealthy people hesitate to make donations is that, no matter the size or purpose of the gift, there will always be outsiders who feel compelled to second-guess their decisions. Another one is that very few strings are allowed to be attached. The stories of the Bass and Robertson families having disputes with the recipients of their largesse have been well-publicized. </p>

<p>Even the Gates Foundation is slowly discovering that the K-12 establishment loves the money but only as long as Bill minds his own business. The motto is "Your money is welcome but leave your views at the door." The good news is that Bill Gates has sufficient wealth and dedication to ignore most of the BS thrown at him. The same applies to the Walton family. The largest gift in history will probably come from Warren Buffett, but you CAN expect that his donations will come with a long series of restrictions. </p>

<p>Very few good deeds go unpunished.</p>

<p>First of all, for the vast majority of students at Yale's School of Music (a graduate program) tuition was already free. Not only that, but in larger numbers of cases, Yale was actually paying the students to be there, in the form of fellowships and graduate assistantships. The policy really only affects a relative small number of graduate students who the school felt were not strong enough to qualify for fellowships or assistantships. </p>

<p>Berea has been tuition free for a hundred years, has a huge endowment (top 10 per student attending), and is very need aware - if you don't need the aid, you don't get in.</p>

<p>This is for Mini:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0304/news0304-plain.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0304/news0304-plain.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"At Berea, whose campus could be a movie set for an elite college, those demographics are nowhere to be found. In fact, Berea will not accept well-to-do students. It considers only students from the lowest economic strata, most of them from backward pockets of Appalachia. The average family income of incoming freshmen currently stands at $28,000. </p>

<p>Or take the current willingness to coddle students with dormitory spas, massage therapists, and parking garages for their BMWs. Berea students would smile at those indulgences. If anyone is providing maid service at Berea, it's the students themselves. Each works ten to 15 hours a week in a "labor position" that ranges from janitorial work to producing videotapes. And campus parking is a breeze because most students can't have cars.</p>

<p>Behind this success lies the weight of the college's $800 million endowment and an improbable financial machine. Over the past two decades, Berea has emerged as one of the premier fundraising institutions in higher education. The size of its endowment puts it far ahead of many larger institutions, and the college currently is concluding a $150 million campaign to augment the fund."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.investing-news.com/artman/publish/printer_1383.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.investing-news.com/artman/publish/printer_1383.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"In the year ended June 30, Berea harvested $36 million in dividends and capital gains from the endowment. It used $27.5 million to cover roughly three quarters of its $36 million operating budget; the school made up the balance through donations and students' federal and state scholarships. The remaining $8.5 million of endowment income went to debt servicing--mostly for capital projects--and to outreach programs and other special purposes.</p>

<p>Berea's endowment--$862 million as of June 30--happens to be one of the richest of any small liberal arts college, much larger than those of such better-known schools as Bowdoin College ($578 million), Carleton College ($536 million) and Oberlin College ($615 million). The figures are more impressive still on a per-student basis: about $575,000 for Berea versus some $361,000 for Bowdoin, $282,000 for Carleton and $220,000 for Oberlin (which, incidentally, supplied Berea with its first teachers).</p>

<p>The National Association of College and University Business Officers (Nacubo) ranked Berea's endowment 64th nationwide and eighth among private liberal arts colleges as of June 30, 2004, the latest reckoning available. Considering that Berea alumni who strike it rich can't, by definition, send their children to their alma mater and thus don't have a legacy tie, building such an ample endowment was no easy task. It took a combination of dedicated fundraising--and, on the investment side, some savvy market timing."</p>

<p>Thanks, Xiggi. I have visited, though many years ago, and I knew one of the trustees (just deceased), a graduate who became very wealthy, moved back to Berea (from Boston) and devoted much of his life as a volunteer just getting the word out. One thing that often surprises folks about Berea is the sheer quality of the academics. The faculty truly want to be there (many could be elsewhere), and the student body is very, very engaged - "late bloomers", we might call them, who bloom late because of "lack of fertilizer and other requirements in their earlier years.</p>

<p>I agree that Yale's move is relatively limited in impact. I believe Curtis also has free tuition. Nevertheless, it's certainly tempting to think about a donor doing the same thing at another school for another department.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>No doubt... but donations are often given out of gratitude for what the institution did for the donor, out of loyalty, or even out of a desire to create competitive advantage for the school. A typical Yale grad wants to see Yale beat Harvard in football, and if they can beat them in recruiting top students that's a good thing too. </p>

<p>The biggest philanthropists can spread their funds to many colleges, but most big donors seem to concentrate on a few schools to which they have a personal tie.</p>

<p>Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd be surprised if this had a huge impact on admissions at music grad schools. Yale was already very competitive and considered a top school for music, so you're not going to be attracting different applicants because it will be tuition free. It will have a huge impact on the individual musicians who attend. </p>

<p>Mini, I'm surprised to hear that music grad students are on fellowships. My own experience is limited, but 25 years ago (at Yale) it was common for grad students in the sciences to have support but not so common for music students. Is there a difference between master's and doctoral programs?</p>

<p>I don't have Yale experience, only UChicago, but well over half the humanities grad students (doctoral) had fellowships or teaching assistantships of one kind or another. But that was a long time ago.</p>

<p>And I have no idea about performing musicians, if that's who it was aimed at.</p>

<p>"I have a concern about the huge donations to the HYP's of the world. These universities already have huge endowments and accept the very cream of the crop into their excellent undergrad programs."</p>

<p>Not true, many other schools also get very large donations. It was in papers today that Texas A&M received $35 million for their Physics dept. Moore - founder of BMC software - has given millions to Uni. of Houston.</p>

<p>I could see a tuition war breaking out---all it would take is one incredibly rich donor determined to make a difference on a grand scale at one key top ranked university. </p>

<p>MIT is a logical candidate. There is already a very strong freeware/open-source/software-should-be-free ethic there to begin with. The book Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software gives a good account of that culture. (Not too surprisingly, that book is itself available for free on the Internet: <a href="http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p>

<p>And MIT's Open CourseWare project is a logical outgrowth of that same philosophy. </p>

<p>Free tuition for face-to-face education at MIT is simply the next logical extension of the MIT's philosophy that intellectual resources should be made freely available.</p>

<p>Philip Greenspun is an MIT alum who has been arguing at considerable legnth for a number of years that MIT should be free. He even went to so far as to put his money where his mouth is: when he guest-lectured in an MIT class, he insisted on rebating the prorated share of tuition attributable to his lectures, handing out $100 bills to the surprised undergrads in the class. (He also founded a tuition-free university, Ars Digita, which was staffed by various MIT alums and faculty members on a pro bono basis for a year or so.)</p>

<p>For more info--check out:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mensetmanus.net/inspiration/tuition-free-mit/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mensetmanus.net/inspiration/tuition-free-mit/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>and</p>

<p><a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/school/tuition-free-mit.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://philip.greenspun.com/school/tuition-free-mit.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I feel reasonably convinced that there are more MIT alums as passionately devoted to the idea that MIT tuition should be free running around out there. </p>

<p>If any of MIT's alums ever strikes it wildly rich, I could see one of them (or a coaliton of them) giving MIT a sufficiently large endowment to drive tuition to zero. Many MIT alumns are passionately devoted to their alma mater and to its mission to make the world a better place. (Greenspun's business has been reasonable successful, but not nearly on a scale that would allow him to endow MIT with fund to drive tuition to zero in perpetuity. Stallman, of the open source movement, won a MacArthur genius grant, but otherwise generally seems to live like someone who's taken a vow of poverty.)</p>

<p>But yeah, I could see it happening at MIT. And if MIT goes to free tuition, that would put heavy pressure on their top competitors (Harvard, Stanford, Princeton) to do the same. And who knows what would happen next?</p>

<p>We're used to education prices going in only one direction: upward. But there ARE prices that have come drastically down over the past few decades---long distance phone service, airfares, computing capacity, calculators, etc. Price wars and competition did it. Indeed, think of the HUGE quantity of information that is now available for free on the Internet--unimaginable a few decades ago.</p>

<p>It may be time to rethink educational pricing and delivery. A huge part of the value of an MIT education is NOT the professors lecturing in the lecture halls, but rather it's MIT students working collaboratively together to help one another learn in informal interactions outside the classroom. So a whole lot of the most valuable "teaching" at MIT is not being done by the "paid" faculty; it is being done by the students themselves. Perhaps the price structure should better reflect that reality.</p>

<p>Beyond MIT, it's worth noting that there IS precedent for quite prestigious private schools to be free--not just but Berea, but consider that Rice University did not begin charging tuition until 1965. (It was set up in 1900 with a charter that did not allow tuition to be charged. Sadlly, their charter also prohibited admission of nonwhite students. Both charter provisions were finally modified in the mid-60s.) </p>

<p>Much more recently, Olin College, in MIT's backyard, started up a few years ago with very generous funding that allows it not to charge tuition. (Indeed, Olin's first entering class even got free room as well, though current students must pay room & board.) There is very heavy recognition in Olin's philosophy that IF you have a highly select group of students, a large part of the educational process will come from students collaborating with one another--very much in the MIT tradition.</p>

<p>So, yes--if some fabulously wealthy donor wanted to make a first-rate college tuition-free to all admitted students, I think MIT is the logical place to make a real splash. It just fits so well with their culture.</p>

<p>And if MIT did it....I think their top competitors would be forced to match it, unless they totally want to fold their hand and cede the top math and science students to MIT.</p>

<p>It wouldn't even cost as much as one might think to make MIT tuition-free. After all, MIT could save a lot of money---they could drastically shrink the financial aid department. (They would still need some financial aid people---since there would presumably still be room & board and some students would need help with that too, in the form of grants & loans.) And if MIT had free tuition, they might not need to spend quite as much money on advertising, marketing, promotion---the world would automatically beat a path to their door even more than they already do! (Indeed, there would probably be a huge increase in application fee revenue, under the circumstances! )</p>

<p>So yeah, you heard it here first--if there's going to be a large-scale undergraduate free tuition war at top universities, I predict that MIT will be the one to make the first really dramatic large-scale move.</p>

<p>The problem with the idea is that it is a hideously regressive change in pricing structure. MIT is already free to poor students. The students who pay are those who can most afford it.</p>

<p>So, the benefit of a change to free-tuition would go exclusively to the rich, not unlike a Republican tax-cut.</p>

<p>Communist plot to subvert the youth who will be the advisors and leaders of the free world. :>)</p>

<p>
[quote]
The problem with the idea is that it is a hideously regressive change in pricing structure. MIT is already free to poor students. The students who pay are those who can most afford it.</p>

<p>So, the benefit of a change to free-tuition would go exclusively to the rich, not unlike a Republican tax-cut.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know how many "ultra-rich" MIT students there are. MIT doesn't exactly seem like it would attract the rich-playboy-stereotype associated with other top colleges.</p>

<p>But I would say that a significant part of the benefit would go to students whose families may make around 100K per year but who live in high-cost-of-living areas.</p>

<p>And right now, I think MIT loses quite a few of those students, because MIT's financial aid is relatively less generous than their competitors. (E.g., it counts at least part of home equity as a parental asset, while Princeton does not count home equity at all. Also it has a relatively high self-help component compared to other high selective schools.) </p>

<p>It's hard for a student whose first choice is MIT but who has also gotten into other very good schools (e.g., Princeton, Harvard) with signficantly more generous grant aid, to justify asking their family to make the additional sacrifices needed to attend MIT.</p>

<p>It's particularly hard for an MIT student who is interested in a relatively low-paying career (e.g., public service--say, working in public health or in flood control in developing countries) to justify MIT's relatively higher cost compared to other schools.</p>

<p>On the other hand, a prospective MIT student who is bound and determined to be a rocket-scientist on Wall Street might justify the extra cost of MIT (because of the highly analytical problem-solving mindset there, combined with the option to study at the Sloan School) under the current cost regime. </p>

<p>So, a zero-tuition scheme might change the nature of who goes to MIT.</p>

<p>Indeed, one possibility for a truly enlightened donor would be to create a special loan fund with the proviso that a certain percentage of the loans would be forgiven for each year the student spent in a low-paying public service job. So, effectively tuition would go to zero for students willing to commit to public service for say 10 years after college.</p>

<p>(This isn't all that different from the deal available to students at the service academies after all. Nobody argues that it's regressive not to charge tuiton to rich parents of West Point cadets, after all.)</p>