<p>Yeaaah, @FallGirl I’m not sure that you’re being particularly rational or reasoned in your responses. I can’t speak to your motivations, but in large part you seem to be mostly responding to claims no one is making, with personal anecdotes that aren’t even relevant to the discussion. The end result is an entire page of conversation about semantics. </p>
<p>(Now obviously this isn’t the case here and now, but I do feel its relevant to point out that the manner in which your flooding the thread is a common PR strategy among firms who represent schools looking for ‘damage control’ among High School seniors after some big flub.)</p>
<p>For instance, you say “To my knowledge D never saw the TV shows that supposedly made her want to attend NYU.” As if directly responding to someone or some claim. In reality, there were really only two posters who mentioned this. The first did so to support the idea that features in television and tabloids have played a large part in NYU’s vast name-recognition (an assessment, I don’t think, anyone would find particularly controversial. Particularly the person who’s on NYU’s payroll with a job description that includes ‘targeted brand placement’…) </p>
<p>The only other poster who mentioned it (myself), did so only to make the point that it was a “stereotype,” largely irrelevant to our discussion as a whole here considering the evidence has demonstrated NYU’s business model is dependent on upper-to-lower middle class families, not necessarily the affluent paying out-of-pocket (as the stereotype goes).</p>
<p>So @FallGirl, I believe the main point of contention here stems not necessarily from a disagreement on the facts of the situation, but instead stems from a misunderstanding of the respective arguments being made.</p>
<p>So, before you respond to my post with an anecdote about that great time you walked your dog in Washington Square park, I think it would be helpful if we clear up confusion about what arguments exactly are under contention and which aren’t. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the arguments that have been made so far can pretty fairly be summarized in a few succinct and abridged points:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>NYU will almost never match the aid of their competitors for a student with a low EFC. And especially won’t give a full-ride for a student with a low EFC unless that student had stats sufficient to warrant a full ride at ivy-level institutions. [A fairly uncontroversial way of describing the impression I think most people, with even a passing knowledge of NYU’s financial aid practices, tend to have.]</p></li>
<li><p>In the last 10 years NYU has engaged in a large amount of (arguably superfluous) spending, and then by virtue of receiving a surprisingly large amount of their revenue from tuition (over, for example, investments) has then passed that expense on to their students.</p></li>
<li><p>While NYU has done a good job over the last 10 years with wage competitiveness vs. Fordham/Columbia and attracting big names for particular programs (I mean, who wouldn’t want a loan against the endowment for their vacation home?), many feel that has come at the expense of many other undergraduate programs, largely taught by adjuncts, that many now consider surprisingly uncompetitive.</p></li>
</ol>
<p><em>**Now, I think the majority of people who are sufficiently educated on the facts of the matter, probably largely agree with the arguments made in 1-3 (barring disputes over particular wording). In fact, over the last 10 years many NYU students and faculty themselves have made those arguments in one form or another in op-eds from the NYTimes to NYU publications. </em> </p>
<p>Now, seemingly, the most controversial argument being posited in this thread (and one I would direct @cptofthehouse to pay attention to as well):</p>
<ol>
<li>NYU has engaged in a systematic and institutionalized deceit (some would go so far as to say fraud), from which they have profited immensely. Now, keep in mind, no one is seriously making the argument this applies to affluent families, or those very knowledgable of the college admissions and financial aid process. Instead many, myself included, have pointed to seemingly endless heart-breaking personal stories of families (many of them middle class) who were oftentimes outright lied to. </li>
</ol>
<p>(One story out of LITERALLY thousands available for consumption: <a href=“http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-11-09/news/debt-and-debtor/”>http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-11-09/news/debt-and-debtor/</a>)</p>
<p>Again, many of us, as consumers, are very aware of a producer’s ability to misrepresent certain realities. But for an institution to outright lie, again, and again, and again to families who trust the inherit legitimacy of said institution really just comes down to a matter of morality in my mind.</p>
<p>And the evidence goes beyond merely qualitative, and instead into the quantitative of hard data. A huge body of facts and figures has empirically demonstrated NYU students carry the largest debt burden of any institution in America (and likely, the planet). While offering a product with arguably dubious quality when contrasted against most major competitors.</p>
<p>And to the argument of responsibility and choice, I again defer to the simple fact that fraud is fraud when your ability to make a responsible choice is compromised through deception and often aggressive, slimy, tactics. Yes, the majority of 18 year olds and their families won’t buy snake-oil if you offer it to them, but perpetrators of fraud know they only need a small, tiny, percentage to say yes for it to be successful.</p>