<p>Complacency is ensures that nothing will ever get done. If something is unfair, it’s not wrong to complain about it and try to get things changed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed! I have a best friend one of whose main purpose in my life is to remind me to “move on.” </p>
<p>We’re full pay for 2 private educations–I’m just happy that my kids were able to choose a school without giving thought to financial considerations. Bliss…</p>
<p>this is a more important life skill</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said Raiderade - I think a few of the parents here should learn from you</p>
<p>“Where else but in college pricing do you have such a huge differential in pricing”</p>
<p>Retirement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now I’m curious to know what schools satisfy these criteria.</p>
<p>SlitheyTove, do you mean Social Security or do you have something else in mind? </p>
<p>I’m also curious about the schools that BerryBerry refers to.</p>
<p>The inherent hypocrisies and flaws in Berryberry’s and Shawbridge’s arguments are too numerous to review completely, but let’s look at a few:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Berry appears to find government overly intrusive in enacting higher income taxes for higher incomes–but not intrusive–indeed mandatory-- for private colleges to be forced (presumably by the government) to end financial aid. </p></li>
<li><p>Shawbridge, although not a lawyer, much less an antitrust expert, feels confident after an internet search to opine that colleges are breaking the law. He does not appear to notice, however, that after arguing that the violation is failing to charge all students the same amount, the litigation result he cites as support of that was charging that colleges were colluding to offer star students identical amounts of aid to avoid bidding wars–the exact sort of conduct he was arguing they should engage in!</p></li>
<li><p>Shawbridge cites as an example of illegal price discrimination the hypothetical example of a car being sold to different customers at different prices. Perhaps Sshawbridge buys his or her cars at sticker price, but the rest of the world has to haggle and, indeed, winds up paying different prices, although not as great as in Shawbridge’s inflated example.</p></li>
<li><p>With additional research, Shawbridge would have learned that the Robinson Patman Act was intended to benefit “mom and pop” businesses against large chains–in today’s world, an example would be to what extent Home Depot can buy inventory from Black & Decker cheaper than a local hardware store. The injury required for a violation is damage “to competition”, not just charging different prices to different buyers by itself. The colleges who were thought to have colluded on aid were not charged under the Robinson Patman Act, but a very different antitrust law, because, logically, if all the Ivies agreed not give more than $10,000 in financial aid to anyone, competition for star students would be reduced because students could not play off one college against another.</p></li>
<li><p>Shawbridge argues that colleges conceal that rich students subsidize poor ones. If they are trying to do that, they are doing a very poor job, given that so many people complain about subsidizing the poor and those who did not save for college. Shawbridge is ok with athletic scholarships for moneymaking sports (which would, of course, mean no women will get them at 99.9% of colleges). Why should educaitonal institutions give scholarships to great football players but not to great students? Should it not be the other way around?</p></li>
<li><p>Finally, and perhaps worst of all, Berryberry goes farther to argue against any financial aid, asserting that a lower, but uniform cost is the only ethical course. Not surprisingly, this would benefit Berryberry personally (Me too, for that matter)–but at what a terrible harm to society! Imagine a United States where the brilliant child of poor parents cannot be awarded a scholarship of any sort and may not even be able to afford a public university–what a waste of American talent! And think about the many scientific discoveries by university researchers who were asisted by students on scholarship. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>In closing, think of MIT, where 90% of the kids receive aid as it seeks the best and brightest kids it can find. Can you imagine their reaction if told their only ethical or lawful option was to reject every kid who could not afford it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do. Our family pays maximum SSI, but we’ll receive the same individual retirement benefits as other workers who earn significantly less, and paid less into the system. </p>
<p>Doesn’t bother me. For that matter, I think that the cap on taxable income for SSI should be removed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One doesn’t purchase retirement. You can’t compare a mandated gov’t program like SS to purchasing a college education</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SUNY Geneseo
The College of New Jersey
Hillsdale
Grove City
Elon (although it is becoming more pricey)
BYU (if you are ok with the atmosphere)
Belmont</p>
<p>all are examples that fit in the first category</p>
<p>There are a number of place that fit in the 2nd category - for example College of Wooster is agood example</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Where did I say government should force this on any college? I believe we need less government - nor more. I am not in favor of any mandated gov’t action here. If you read carefully what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions, you would see that I stated I believed this practice was not illegal IMO but unethical. Furthermore, I stated that the only way this stops is when full or near full pay families wise up and say enough (which many do - opting for state U or cheaper alternatives rather than paying full boat at other colleges who are going to redistribute part of what they pay to fund some other student) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, it is irrelevant whether or not i would personally benefit. And for that matter, my d should earn merit $ so I probably come out the same either way. But its funny in your diatribe you don’t provide any facts or statements to show why a uniform cost would not be the most ethical practice. You simply give the standard mantra of the left about helping others.</p>
<p>As I stated - I have no problem when people want to help others - I know thats what I do with my charitable donations. But ethically - it is only right that each individual decides this - not some college practicing income redistribution</p>
<p>I don’t get the choices listed. TCNJ is a NJ state school that will try to first meet the financial need of instate students. Additionally, NJ has high priced instate schools. If your EFC is about 23,000+ and you are instate, this school works out for you financially, but that is not different than any other instate public with a similar price tag.</p>
<p>Elon does have a lower price tag for a private school, but it is climbing quickly too, as you state. </p>
<p>Suny Geneseo is probably out of state just a bit more than TCNJ instate, and they will try to meet the financial need of the NY instate students first.</p>
<p>I am not really sure about the others, but I read that BYO is a good deal.</p>
<p>One school that might fall into what you are looking for financially, but for the B- student is York College. It is priced at 25k and that includes the books. Still, they will offer merit aid and financial aid too.</p>
<p>Wooster is a 44,000 school. I think that the most one could reasonably expect in merit aid, but perhaps I am wrong, is 20,000. That brings the cost to what TCNJ probably is charging instate if you do not qualify for more financial aid. So, this works if your EFC is once again, in the 24k range. They do offer financial aid though, if one qualifies. If you do not qualify for a sizable merit award, and do not have financial need, the sticker price is 44,000. One third of students who did not qualify for financial aid, received a merit award at Wooster:</p>
<p>[Student</a> Aid on the Web](<a href=“http://studentaid2.ed.gov/gotocollege/campustour/undergraduate/5583/College_of_Wooster/College_of_Wooster4.html]Student”>http://studentaid2.ed.gov/gotocollege/campustour/undergraduate/5583/College_of_Wooster/College_of_Wooster4.html)</p>
<p>bb - I’d be interested in the background info that shows schools where the full-pay students are subsidizing financial-aid students. Everything I’ve read claims that the actual cost of attendence for any one student (including full-pay students) is greater than the full-pay fees … in other words that all students are being subsidized from the endowment (or state taxes or etc) and the only question is how much any one student is being subsidized. My understanding is your scenario of full-pay students subsidizing other students is just not very prevelant … but I’m open to info proving otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You simply give the standard mantra of the right about refusing to help those who need it. Some kids overcome immense hardship to even be ADMITTED to college and it is our duty as a society to educate them. It is far costlier(think welfare) to leave them uneducated. </p>
<p>Furthermore berryberry, if you are a member of the right wing, you believe in capitalism and limited restrictions on business, no? Well, if a college is a business they can spend their funds as they wish and you can choose to take your business elsewhere. If the system was soo terrible, enough enraged people like you would take their business elsewhere and the college would fail…yet, I don’t see that happening with any extremely generous University of LAC…hmmm</p>
<p>At soem point the most “ethical” option has to merge with the ideas that make the most sense. It does not make sense to make a flat rate for college(as there are alot of kids who wouldn’t be able to be educated ANYWHERE), unless you want to make college a priviledge of the elite. </p>
<p>Also would like to add, I don’t know who’s “frugal” but lower income family doesn’t get need based aid. Assests are only assessed at like 6% to go towards EFC…your INCOME really impacts it…So, I don’t see how people making 200,000 with NO savings would get finaid…their income would disqualify them alone(except at a few schools)</p>
<p>It’s easy to blame a system you feel “cheated” by, but you’re still LUCKY you can afford to send your kids to school. As I said earlier, most kids/families would kill for that ability</p>
<p>3togo - Yes, I here the same claims “claims that the actual cost of attendence for any one student (including full-pay students) is greater than the full-pay fees … in other words that all students are being subsidized from the endowment”. Shoot - my PK-12 independent school makes the same claims :)</p>
<p>But its all garbage (at least for most schools). yes, there are places (those with huge endowments) where this is the case. But at most schools, the endowment draws are not that huge. Furthermore, there can often be lots of restrictions on draws. When I was working at a large flagship state U - it cost $1.5 million to endow a chair. Our dept. endowed about 10 chairs in 6 years ourselves (all for our dept). The funds could only be spent as we saw fit. So while the Univ showed $15 million more in endowed funds, none of the money was available to reduce student costs. We used it to help fund research projects. Just one example - but you get the gist. The %'s are based on a college’s overall costs - which inflates the cost figure making it appear everyone is subsidized but this is not the case (you know the old saying - lies, damn lies and statistics)</p>
<p>The claim that everyone is subsidized really comes from the Development folks - its a lot easier asking everyone for money using this argument :)</p>
<p>rocket6louise</p>
<p>A few things to note:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No its not. Public education funding for all ends at 12th grade. There are gov’t programs / tax credits to support low income families with higher education but that doesn’t mean they have to or should attend any college they want on the taxpayers backs. Lots of lower cost options out there</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope - I am not a member of the right wing. I am a fiscally conservative Independent with libertarian leanings </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already said that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are options out there for anyone - you know this, we and others have discussed it in other threads with you - state universities, community colleges, etc all can offer an affordable option. No one NEEDS that expensive private LAC</p>
<p>Yeah, but some of us who could afford those expensive LACs may just want to mix with the masses, you know. It would give my kids a better sense of how the other side lives, part of their all around education. Sheesh.(total sarcasm here)</p>
<p>Berry - why would you be so rude as to tell someone they are getting a hand out because they are getting FA? Does it make you feel better in spitting out this type of nonsense on this board. You may have something to say or contribute, but the way you are doing it is disgusting. For your information, those highly talented individuals on FA may just add value to some of those diplomas out there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wooster offers need-based grants that come from the college itself. If you’re looking for schools that offer “lots of merit aid as part of their marketing and not part of redistributing income”, Wooster doesn’t seem to pass your criteria. I can’t imagine that there’s any school that offers good merit aid that doesn’t also offer need-based aid–or, as you’d call it “redistributing income”. </p>
<p>What happens if your D wants to attend and is admitted to a school that fits in your budget but which also happens to give need-based aid? Your posts imply that this is a matter of principle, not only budget. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure you do. Denture cream. 4 pm blue plate specials. Cruises to Antarctica. Grandchildren’s college costs (should be about $500k a semester by then). All things that you might purchase during retirement. You can’t purchase education, either, but you can sure pay for college. Same deal. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just did, so demonstrably you can. The original question was “Where else but in college pricing do you have such a huge differential in pricing”. Now you want to change the rules in the middle of the game and add that this should only be for discretionary purchases. The Calvinball tournament is thataway, if that’s what you’re interested in.</p>
<p>oldfort - Sorry if you don’t like that I am stating the facts. Maybe you like to sugarcoat things. I prefer the direct approach. And I have had this debate with rocket6louise on another thread so not sure why she wants to rehash it.</p>
<p>Anyway given your past posts and taunts directed to me, I really could care less what you think</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look again - Wooster gives very generous merit aid to a huge % of their population. Yes, they do have some need based aid as well - alas, you can’t have everything. I believe with them it is all a matter of packaging.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is both. And it would depend on how much redistribution of income is occurring. Unfortunately, one can not move away to a just ethical non-redistribution scenario that easily.</p>
<p>
I’m sorry that comment was unnecessary</p>
<p>
The debate on the other thread was about merit and need based mixing. I believe this thread is about need based aid in general. Besides, if you keep spouting hateful rhetoric, I will keep fighting you on it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll agree with young and idealistic(i’d rather be idealistic than “realistic” and downright hateful) but I really do think I have a strong sense of money. I have had a job since I was 14 years old and have had to pay for EVERYTHING. When money’s tight in my house, I contribute to basic bills and such. I pay taxes-just like you do. I work-just like you do. And I save as much as possible-just like you do. Where do you get the moral superiority? Age doesn’t equal wisdom</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You rant just as much as I do 
That’s why I enjoy this internet forum</p>
<p>Just so I understand:</p>
<p>need based aid going to a kid like rocket = evil redistribution of income to someone looking for a handout.</p>
<p>merit based aid going to a kid like B^2’s kid = a just and ethical allocation of resources to a worthy student.</p>
<p>Glad we got that straight.</p>