<p>I think this is a problem of "sticker shock," mini. Affordable or not, an actual 75K price tag might turn away even millionaires. What do you suggest: a sliding scale for everyone? With the millionaires paying 75K/yr, the middle class much less, and with lower income getting still the lion's share of the financial aid?</p>
<p>I propose simply eliminating the subsidy for those who can pay. (I'd also auction off a certain portion of the places to the highest bidders among pre-qualified applicants - they essentially do that now, but just not publicly.) I don't think they'd have any problem filling the school with highly qualified applicants whose parents would beg for the opportunity to pay.</p>
<p>Do the numbers: if you include the subsidies, lower income folks are NOT getting the lion's share of financial aid. And now that some schools have lowered and/or eliminated loans for upper middle class folks, that is even less true.</p>
<p>I am <em>not</em> including what you call subsidies. (Tuition) Further, if (since) millionaires & upper-middle-class are getting "subsidized," lowest income are STILL getting the most financial aid (designated, frank aid --PLUS subsidy).</p>
<p>Explicitly auctioning slots is both more honest and transparent then develoment admits. Plus, not only are they practicing classic price discrimination, but they are leaving money on the table.</p>
<p>As far as the subsidy argument, I was looking at the Harvard Fact Book, and out of their $3B budget, 21% of income was from students (net of scholarships), and 26% of expenses were for instruction.</p>
<p>It looks like students are pretty much paying for what they are getting without huge subsidies, especially if they are paying list price.</p>
<p>So some people are arguing for transparency (i.e., auctioning) on the basis of pure principle. Unfortunately, an institution which is both a business as a category, and a nonprofit as a subsection of that category, will choose on pragmatic grounds not to operate so crassly: it will change the character of the students and the donors interested in being associated with that institution. What some people call secrecy others perceive as discretion.</p>
<p>Those offended by that system need not participate in it. Are such private institutions taking significant amounts of your personal tax dollars? There are an awful lot of people who like even less, poliices like AA, athetic recruitment, etc. at those same institutions. Many such objectors specifically avoid privates for some of these very policy reasons, applying to publics which mandate & watch-dog transparency.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are an awful lot of people who like even less, poliices like AA, athetic recruitment, etc. at those same institutions. Many such objectors specifically avoid privates for some of these very policy reasons, applying to publics which mandate & watch-dog transparency.
[/quote]
If you oppose athletic recruitment, going to a public university will hardly help you avoid it.</p>