<p>Yes, but couldn't the small business owner have gotten his ownership interest from his own alive and kicking parents? Almost certainly, the stock change would have been recorded only in his own office thereby enabling him to declare his small salary and his large mortgage and send in his most recent 1040 as substantiation. He could choose not to fill out the business owner worksheet of the calculations. Who would know the difference? Besides, why should he feel bad about it? The parent who own parents were vastly richer than this guy's parents can just put the money on the counter for their child. Who loses? The truly poor kid and the kid who can not even apply because he has a rich parent who doesn't care to help. I am not sure that vast financial aid from elite private colleges is leveling the playing field all that much. Some, yes, but enough? I wonder if these schools search out the really poor kids with as much effort as some of them spend on finding fine athletes. And the kid with the truly uncaring rich parent or (even) parents doesn't have a chance; if he or she can't get merit aid, that student will go into debt or get a job after high school.</p>
<p>So how can a rich school find a truly poor kid or even a relatively poor one? How about having a requirement that the entering student must sign over all present and future inheritance rights to the generous school for use by future poor kids?</p>
<p>By that point of life, lots of smart kids have parents who DON'T own a house. If a college's policy ASSUMES that every family owns a house, when not all do, that is not helpful to the admittees from the poorer families. The families who own houses have assets, from which they can extract cash by mortgaging, that are unavailable to families that don't own houses (who presumably have been poorer, and poor for longer, than the families with houses in most cases). The institutional method looks at many forms of assets to determine the size of financial aid awards, and now that Harvard is more aware of how little extra cash the lowest-income, lowest-asset families have, more able students are more likely to attend Harvard.</p>
<p>I don't understand what Harvard is doing here. I go to USC, so I know that tuition is going up 2,500 next year, so college is getting CRAZY expensive. But why not just lower rates, and then lower financial aid? It's weird, it's like some re-distribution of wealth, because it's no lie that the middle class when it comes to financial aid just gets royally screwed. Some day the college system is going to have to live up to this fact-- this can't continue forever.</p>
<p>I'd say those earning $60-80,000 - who benefit greatly from this initiative - qualify for the "middle class."</p>
<p>There is no reason why financial aid for those in need should be reduced - even a nickel - to lower tuition for the children of mega-millionaires at the top of the economic heap.</p>
<p>I don't understand why "free" is even an option. Shouldn't everybody have some responsibilty to pay their way ? Even if you are very poor you should have work study or a small amount of loans so that you contributed to your education. If these students are going to graduate with an Ivy League degree why can't they agree to give something back later ( like when teachers agree to work in a poor school district for so many years in exchange for tuition). My experience in school was that the students who had a vested interest worked harder and took school more seriously than those whose parents paid everything for them and it seems that would apply here as well.
Don't get me wrong - my H and I both had a hand up attending college ans appreciate it as we came from lower income families - but we also had loans and worked our way through school. There is something to be said for that.</p>
<p>I believe there are many who agree with you on principle ... which is why many schools which could afford to waive it (ie, Harvard, Princeton, Yale & Stanford) still retain a requirement for some sort of student contribution, whether from summer or term-time employment, although Harvard offers the option of a loan for the equivalent sum.</p>
<p>And yeah, in response to apfreak, I think it's reasonable to assume that, as this Harvard initiative is a response to Princeton and Yale's own initiatives, both colleges will probably at least match Harvard's policy by next year. In terms of $ per student, the three are about the same; they can afford it if they want to do it.</p>
<p>Both my parents are small business owners, and combined they make about 80k. However, we have 1mil in assets total from the 2 businesses. So, would we get screwed over in financial aid?</p>
<p>jakintosh, I'm from a middle class family and I received a great financial aid offer from Harvard. Most of those paying full tuition can fully afford to pay it (upper middle class and upper class). The point of financial aid isn't to make costs in general smaller but to relieve the burden of paying from those who can't afford it without putting themselves deep into debt.</p>
<p>PA Mom, financial aid at Harvard includes a "self help offer", basically money that the student is expected to earn on his/her own. This amounts to just under $4000 per year, which is a reasonable size for a full time student - it's basically what a full time student can earn in a summer internship if things go your way. Financial aid is really just a way to avoid punishing students for having unwealthy parents. It won't make students lose their work ethic or anything. It's not as if the wealthier students don't have any other advantages in life, anyway.</p>
<p>Thanks for the info porsk - that was my point . I really do think it is in the students best interest that they pay for part of their education. The "sensationalized" headlines just don't give enough info.
"FreeTuition" just doesn't sound like a good idea for anybody. And "wealthy" parents don't necessarily make "wealthy" students either - I don't see any reason why a student should not be working in the summer to help pay for college regardless of their parents income. Sorry if it sounds old fashioned - Just the way I was raised I guess.</p>
<p>No I definitely see what you mean and I agree with your assessment - I agree with the policy of expecting a student contribution for the purpose of having the student work for his or her education, and Harvard does too or it wouldn't bother collecting the few thousand dollars (not like they couldn't absorb a few hundred grand).</p>
<p>Harvard is technically free FOR FAMILIES because it is not expecting any "family contribution" from families in these income brackets. Family contribution is what families are expected to pay out of family income and savings and student savings. So it's full financial aid in the sense that the school is free except for a token amount that the student is supposed to pay off - $4k out of $47k is basically full tuition with a work program added in. $4k is JUST enough to make the student get a summer job or take out a loan, but not enough to put a financial strain on the family or force the student to pay off loans for the rest of his or her life.</p>
<p>I believe students should be working for some of their college payments and most of their pocket money. I don't like it when parents give their children more pocket money than they know what to do with. Now that I have a job, I generally refuse to accept money for non-essential items from my parents. It's more satisfying to own something that you know you worked hard for.</p>
<p>Thank you - I am glad you understood the point I was trying to make . It sounds like your parents raised you with that strong work ethic as well !</p>
<p>I think poor students are given too much of a boost. Their situation helps them twice: they look better for admissions, and then they get to go for free.</p>
<p>I am just bitter because the middle class gets screwed by finaid.</p>
<p>Once again, the middle class in general does not get screwed by financial aid; though it may be underassessed in specific instances, I know that at least in my case, Harvard has been very generous. I'd like to point out that in spite of all the help Harvard tries to extend to the poor, they're still sorely underrepresented at Harvard, while plenty middle class students get in. It's not as if Harvard is herding armies of poor kids into the school.</p>
<p>I know it can be hard to pay for any family to pay for college, and I can understand why that would make some people hostile to those whose families don't have to pay at Harvard, but keep in mind that a significant amount of those families contributing nothing toward their children's educations are already struggling to pay their own expenses at home.</p>
<p>Maybe a little, but financially disadvantaged students tend to make up only a small minority of qualified Harvard students. While total applications may jump a bit, the average qualification shouldn't change all that much in the short term.</p>
<p>I expect to see SAT scores flattening out, as Harvard gives them less weight by seeking other ways to measure the potential of applicants in the lowest economic quadrant.</p>
<p>The direct relationship, level by level, between higher family income and higher SAT medians is troubling to the Harvard admissions people and others. Whether is is a cultural factor or something else, recruiting potential leaders and people of promise from the bottom economic quadrant will require some "decoupling" from the SAT's. </p>
<p>This is problematic, of course, since GPA's are increasigly meaningless with grade inflation, counsellors' letters from big schools are often less than helpful, and doubts arise, in some cases, as to exactly who is writing the essays.</p>
<p>Greater weight than ever will be placed on alumni interviews and other ways of assessing a candidate's "personal qualities".</p>