Issues like this don’t help their “non-profit” image.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/nyregion/nyu-gives-stars-loans-for-summer-homes.html
and we haven’t even discussed the treatment of adjunct faculty.
Sorry, but Harvard is not a good example of a school relying on student loans to extract higher tuitions, since they currently claim “100% of our students can graduate debt free” (for undergraduates…).
Equally disingenuous: hocking the house or retirement because *it’s Harvard omg. * getting admitted doesn’t sprinkle magic dust on the decisions you are in control of. Blaming H is no excuse.
Harvard’s aid exceeds every college but maybe Princeton for a given income bracket. And the low amount is subsidized loans doesn’t go very far towards a $60,000+ total annual cost for full pay. Families with $60,000 or less annual income are full ride and $60-150,000 contribute 10% of gross income. $15,000/year for Harvard on a $150,000 salary is a good deal by any standard. That’s barely above room and board at most schools when the student has a full tuition scholarship. Families should have some skin in the game.
Harvard tends to have generously low EFC shown in its net price calculator. It it likely that many families who cannot afford their EFC at other schools can afford their Harvard EFC. It also has a low student contribution that is assumed to be covered with student work without needing loans.
The families whom Harvard is not nice to in financial aid are the divorced parent ones.
Of couree, from the point of view of a student from a non plutocrat family, the big barrier to Harvard is admission, since such a large percentage of its classes come from those who get no financial aid, and it would still be highly competitive even if the student SES were not so heavily skewed toward the plutocrat class.
Should a family be able to put their child through any college of choice without having to make any sacrifices? Every family’s financial situation is unique and different, and different people make different choices; the decision by parents to borrow in order to cover their EFC instead of making some other sacrifice in order to be able to afford the EFC is a choice.
BTW, endowments are not a hoard of cash waiting to be spent, endowments are invested so as to generate income. The income from an endowment is used to help offset the costs of operating the institution and carry out its mission. Harvard has long maintained that even the full-pay sticker price does not fully cover the cost of the education provided – the difference is made up for in part by income from the endowment.
Wouldn’t we be better off if more colleges had large endowments rather than attacking those who do? I’m more concerned about the lack of charitable giving by the average American than whether Harvard should stop charging admission.
If Harvard reduced cost to zero for everyone, the class size would still be finite, and likely the same size it is now. Can you imagine the attacks then on how half the class came from families that could afford to pay $60,000/year and are now living on the backs of donors?
Apologize? Or wish people would wrap their heads around some realism. Fact: lots give lots of money to schools like Harvard. Fact: lots bow to lots of tippy tops. And then want to gripe about what could/should be different. Every year we get the “big bad them” threads. It includes how they “waste money” on lazy rivers, lol, should take more kids, should reveal the secret recipe to get in (and do away with holistic.) Endless, really. They can spend their money as they wish and the dissatisfied can find other options.
And then you want them to apoligize for the fixation on a limited number of schools and maybe that they’re past your sensible price point…but you still idolize? In the end, we control what we can, right? Or no, it’s them?
IF endowments like Harvard’s are unconscionably high AND the problem is that they’re not spending enough underwriting the cost of education for their students (and I’m not persuaded that those things are true) it would make more sense to subject them to a rule like the one that applies to private foundations and require them to spend a certain percentage of their endowment or investment income each year. It’s a much more direct way of solving the problem.
Of course, if, as I’ve seen suggested, these proposals are really about anti-intellectual conservatives resenting the build up of funds at places they dislike for having lots of liberals, that solution won’t work because it won’t help underwrite tax cuts for the wealthy and for big corporations.
@millie210 I’m on your side on this argument that large endowments are not inherently bad but now you’re making sweeping attacks that conservatives are anti-intellectual.
While CC seems to tolerate political posts on one side more than the other, it’s best to leave politics out of this and discuss the merits of the argument.
Another thing to keep in mind about endowments – many of the monies within these funds were given by donors who put restrictions on how their contributions could be used.
I doesn’t matter what a university such as Harvard charges. If they determine your EFC to be, say, $20,000, this is what you would pay, whether full COA is $20,000, $60,000, or $150,000/yr.
What do you think college tuition should cost? Would you support free college tuition for all academically qualified students? Should we have free public college as well as free K-12 education?
One of my Tea Party neighbors has decided he is in favor of free public college. He brought this up with me after attending his first college info session for his 14 year old daughter at our local public high school.
But what do you think about free college? Or where would you set tuition? What is fair?
I keep reading on various threads Harvard and the big endowment schools could give free tution. Should they?
@ImUrHuckleBerry you are shifting to the high cost of college in general. There are many private schools that cost $60,00 per year that aren’t elite. Add in the problem if for-profits that target part-time students and the problem grows.
First, there are already options for college at different price tiers from community college to directional to flagships to privates. I went to a not highly regarded on CC flagship and life has turned out fine. I had friends start at directional and transfer to the flagship. I agree with someone earlier that the real issue is states that don’t offer a reasonable cost for public four year university.
The discussion on the rise of education costs is valid and necessary but it is complex. Many schools are making tenure farmer to obtain and using poorly paid adjuncts. The rise in administrators per faculty member is concerning. Infrastructure expectations by modern students drives up costs. Professors are expected to be published which limits course loads. I believe profs should teach more sections per semester but also understand that one who is doing research and writing will be sharper than one who is not. The fact that faculty at a CC are likely adjuncts teaching multiple sections is why costs are low.
This is a valid discussion but not one solved with a simple assertion that colege should be free.
I will try to restate this again so ImUrHuckleBerry can understand it from POV of a middle class family (the one he or she keeps referencing ). The Ivies which use NEED BASED FA baseline are incredibly generous to families who make under 130k. Our family was able to send our son to anIvy for a fraction of the cost it would have cost us to send him to a UC. If your family is making 60k or lower an Ivy education is almost a free ride. Please tell me what else you’d like these schools to do?
If you want to have an arguement ala Malcolm Gladwell in terms of spreading that money primarily across low income families then go for it but that’s not the OP question…
I’d second the observation that these schools also provide the majority of the employment in their areas for most non-student populations.
If we are going to start taxing non-profit endowments I’d argue off shore corporate profits should be first on the hit squad…
Lol, Harvard is no ground zero on liberalism. Look around.
No one said high tuition is a “good thing.” Claiming so is more an argument tactic than discussion. As in, if you don’t think endowments should be busted, then you’re clearly against “what is good for the “little people” and the middle class.” Say what?
There are lots of colleges that will lift many good kids. Contrary to so many chance threads, it’s not all about some list of 30. And what matters most is the right colleges for those “little people” (which feels rather dismissive,) as individuals, right for them. Not using their growth as an excuse to attack a few tippy top colleges most kids won’t get admitted to.
^If Harvard is ground zero for liberalism why does half the class end up on Wall Street?
I wouldn’t mind if Harvard were even more generous with their financial aid, but I have no problem with those with the means paying their share. I think they should contribute more to Cambridge with their PILOT. (Payment in lieu of Taxes). I think the way adjunct faculty is treated is a disgrace and would like to see Harvard be a leader in giving these folks a living wage.
I don’t like the many of political leanings of the ‘elite’ institutions. But the only valid criteria is if they are meeting their stated educational or charitable goals to maintain their non-profit status. The government is trying to do first grab revenue, and eventually to control them directly which is far more dangerous. There are barely any private schools in the K-12 space because of high public school taxes and lack of vouchers. It’s not just the federal government, it’s state governments like Connecticut who want to impose a Yertle tax on everything that they can see, smell, taste or touch.
You realize, of course, that Business Insider article was written by a high school senior? Her solution is as follows:
Okay…