<p>Moderator Scipio posted an interesting link from the Harvard Crimson </p>
<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519963%5B/url%5D">http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519963</a> </p>
<p>on the Harvard Forum, and I think it deserves discussion here too because it addresses the trade-offs between lower and higher tuition when shopping for colleges.</p>
<p>Making H. free would cheapen the value of the degree. They don't need any more prestige, but if they wanted more, the best way to get it would be to raise the tuition very substantially, and subsidize more upper income ($100k-$200k) folks who manage to get in.</p>
<p>I found it interesting that tuition-free at Olin didn't mean lowest cost of attendance at Olin.</p>
<p>Cooper Union has been free for, what is it, 100 years? And more selective to get into than Olin (about the same, or a little more difficult than, H.). But it hasn't helped their prestige any. Berea is also tuition-free, and has a massive endowment per student attending. But they lose prestige points 'cause there aren't any rich folks there.</p>
<p>Gee... The UCs are tuition free for in-state students. It still somehow costs those same in-state students up to nearly $25,000/year.</p>
<p>^^That's because of state budget squeezes brought on by decades of increasing political pressure to lower, or at least not to raise any taxes, the UCs have been forced to get ridiculously creative in defining "tuition" (only the money used to pay for direct instruction of the student) and distinguishing it from "fees" (money used to pay for everthing else at the college other than direct instruction). </p>
<p>The result of all this financial pressure and resultant sophistry? In 1965, the state of California covered 94.4% of an in-state UC student's education. Last year it paid 58.5%.</p>
<p>It's a little poignant. That article is two years old, and very Larry Summers-centric.</p>
<p>^^It is indeed Summers-centric and it may even be a little poignant, but it's not two years old. The Crimson published it yesterday.</p>
<p>I take it back. The date at the top of the page says November 2005, but it's clearly a 2007 article.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I've never felt it was the responsibility of taxpayers to cover room, board, travel, and personal expenses for students. If you take personal costs out, fees and books come to around $10k for the UC system. Still expensive, but not as bad as that scary $25,000. </p>
<p>I paid about $1,000 per year at UC Irvine in the mid-70s. What I don't remember is how much out of state tuition cost in 1975. Do students today pay a higher proportion of the out of state cost than they did then? I suspect so, but if anyone knows where to find historical information (I failed) on OOS tuition at the UC, I'd be interested.</p>
<p>I guess my point is -- whether you call it tuition or 'fees' -- it's still money out of students'/parents' pockets.</p>
<p>perhaps katliamom was having a little fun with a play on words since technically, the UCs do not charge "tuition"; instead, they charge "fees". :D</p>
<p>And from what I have read- Fees are worse- because I don't believe you can deduct money spent on fees when you do taxes & you can deduct money spent on interest for education loans ( for tuition)</p>
<p>Cooper Union isn't getting the same group of applicants, I'm sure, and definitely isn't getting the same group of matriculants as Harvard does. </p>
<p>Cooper Union admission stats: </p>
<p>Harvard admission stats: </p>
<p>Cooper Union enrolled students test scores: </p>
<p>Harvard enrolled students test scores: </p>
<p>In other words, Harvard is more selective. I think it is more selective because its value--for the learner--is perceived to be greater even if its list price is greater. The difference in perceived value, which partly consists of what classmates one has while attending Harvard, is greater than the difference in out-of-pocket cost.</p>
<p>Think of the number of students we could send to college with the billions spent on war.</p>