<p>"Princeton University, the fourth- oldest college in the U.S., has increased the cost of an undergraduate education to $45,695 for the next school year. </p>
<p>Tuition will be $34,290 and room and board will be $11,405, a 3.9 percent increase for each category, according to a statement released today by the university. Those costs total $43,980 this year. </p>
<p>``After reviewing projections for national labor markets, we concluded that this increase was likely to be less than or equal to the average rate of increase in the income of tuition-paying families at Princeton,'' Provost Christopher Eisgruber said in the statement."</p>
<p>Adjusted for increases in income (no less assets), LESS to pay for wealthy students. Actually, for wealthy students, Princeton is less expensive now than it has been at any time in past 25 years.</p>
<p>mini may be closer to the truth here. Keep in mind that places like Princeton use an unusual definition of "poor" - those families with incomes less than $60K per year. But $60K is above the median family income. </p>
<p>According to data I could quickly find, in 2005, less than 6% of american families had incomes above $150K. Surely, most of us would consider folks in the top 10% of the income brackets "wealthy?" So under the new fin aid policies at some elites, a number of wealthy will be getting big cuts in their college bills.</p>
<p>Why these universities call families in the top 1/4 or so of our income distribution "middle class" is beyond me. I find it disingenuous, and a way of masking the truth behind their policy changes. </p>
<p>(this is obviously not a Princeton only rant. sorry...)</p>
<p>If a goverment with billions and billions tax $$$$$ can't save those family with less than $60k income out from 'poor'. Why it should be the responsibility to HYP or any other private institution to save the world? Their responsibility is to run an institution, get the most 'qualified' students into their institution, educated them. If the qualified students family can't pay the cost, then help them out pay the cost.</p>
<p>Now they felt even their own faculty would feel the finantial pressure to send their kids to their own institution without discount or maintane the same life style (assume their kids are qualified, and with both parents as the faculty member, the family income would be no doubt > $150k). It make sense to them the family with similar income range as their own faculty could have pressure too. So they decide to sprinkle the FA to those family without sacrify the FA to lower income family students. What do you think them should do more? With hold the FA to middle, upper middle class and Give more money to the poor students to support their family? One can only save what could be saved. Its not their responsibility to save the world.</p>
<p>With the millions and billions of dollars that some schools - such as Princeton - have in endowments - they should be forced to utilize some of that to actually lower the tuition at these schools - for all students - rich or poor.</p>
<p>The reason the issue of "benefit for whom?" comes up is because most private universities are non-profits under the law and tax code. This means that in return for not paying income taxes (and property taxes in most states), they agree to provide a "public" benefit i.e. their mission. </p>
<p>Some of us believe that a "public" benefit that only benefits the wealthy is not in keeping with the concept of public benefit. </p>
<p>You may not like it, but that is, indeed the law. </p>
<p>FWIW, I would love to see JeepMOM or Alumother live on the income of one of these "poor" families. Yes, college hurts, and I'm speaking as one who will pay my D's last tuition bill in a few weeks. She qualified for no need based financial aid (although I give her great credit for winning a valuable merit award her 2nd year!). And we sat just beyond the edge for qualifying for need based aid. But it has been FAR less painful for us than for those with less income, I suspect. Yes, we gave up new cars, nice vacations and meals out, but at least we could afford those things before D's college. All too many folks can't.</p>
<p>I am not questioning the necessity of paying this. If I can afford it, I should pay it. I don't resent the subsidies for lower income families, at all. I just take umbrage at being told I'm being subsidized by a tuition increase.</p>
<p>Frankly, the tuition at schools such as Princeton and other highly sought-after schools is vastly TOO LOW! If they accept only 10% of their students, they are obvously undercharging and can arguably raise their tuition considerably.</p>
<p>Higher COA at Pton, makes other schools look relative inexpensive. This could mean more redistribution of high caliber students to other schools which could rise their quality. Pton neither needs or wants more applicants which only costs it more to sort out. The next ~50 schools could use more quality applicants, and so down the line.</p>
With the millions and billions of dollars that some schools - such as Princeton - have in endowments - they should be forced to utilize some of that to actually lower the tuition at these schools - for all students - rich or poor.
</p>
<p>This is exactly the kind of baseless backseat driving that is so harmful.</p>
<p>It is in Princeton's best interests to use the endowment money to create the best financial package to attract the most qualified students it can at all levels, while maintaining excellent programs and spending at a level sustainable for perpetuity.</p>
<p>Since Princeton tuition is already only half of the actual cost of a Princeton education, I think the tuition subsidy is at a pretty good level right now.</p>
<p>But hey, I guess you know better than all the experts that run the endowment; than all the myriad professionals involved with setting spending goals and amounts and priorities. You are obviously more qualified to direct the spending of the university. How dare Princeton have assumed that it might know best how to meet its educational mission. What hubris.</p>
<p>Is your attack on JeepMOM necessary? You are perfectly entitled to disagree and state another opinion. That's what honest discussion is about. But to call someone's post "baseless" or to say "I guess you know better than all the experts that run the endowment", especially when JM's post said nothing about running the endowment (perhaps you don't see the distinction?) is IMHO inappropriate.</p>
<p>To top it off, you add the classic university fundraising blurb regarding tuition and actual expenses as if it were fact. (hint: it is not. Most schools actually make a PROFIT on undergraduate instruction, not that you'd know so from either their PR materials). </p>
<p>So please, stick to what you know (i.e. not higher ed finance :) ) and show some respect for opinions different from your own.</p>
<p>JeepMOM, Yes, I would like to see they lower the tuition to all the students too. But on the other side they have to balance with other private institution. If I say so, I would say it was the other lower tie private colleges charge too much with stick price. By comparing the stick price, and education quality which school you would prefer send your kids to, assume they qualify for both?</p>
<p>nmsd, imo these school are pioneers of acting on public insteresting at least in high education front. For one, they are among the first to promote need-blind addmission, provide the low income kids with FULL cost coverage. For two they further the FA relief to middle and upper middle class familie without sacrify the FA to lower income family. For three, as I understand the middle and upper-middle class family are also belong to public. For four, as far as you mentioned the 'tax exception' benefit these school enjoys, since middle and upper-middle class pay the largest portion of tax in this country, imo, its only fair that these families get some FA relief from these 'tax excempted' private institutions if they can't get any tax excempt on tuition paid from the government.</p>
<p>In todays technology and economic, those two income families (say both work as teachers, technicians, etc.) easily make it > 100k family income. Should they be 'punished' because both of them work? And some of these parents may come from 'poor' family themselves, now they pulled themself out into the middle, should they be 'punished'? ....</p>
<p>Don't assume ppl posted here with different tone than yours have not live a 'poor' life. I and quite a few of my friends have lived a quite 'poor' life ourselves. I and my H had took lowest pay job to support each other going through the college, so did most of my 'poor' friends. Today most of us made it to the middle and upper-middle...... sometimes I think a more properiety quetion might be "why people stay 'poor'?". Don't tell me all those income < $60k 'poor' people have no 'choice'. Yes, some of them do have choice such as single income vs. double income. Some may just don't have the 'desire' to work themselves out of poor......I've seen so many first generation immigrant families whose parents couldn't even speak fluent english worked hard and long, digged themseves out of 'poor', made it to the middle and upper-middle. Usually they have the desire and they put their kid's education as prioriety. Most of these kids are now professionals contributing sizable of their income to the tax pool to help the poor.......One can only save those want to be saved!</p>
Is your attack on JeepMOM necessary? You are perfectly entitled to disagree and state another opinion. That's what honest discussion is about. But to call someone's post "baseless" or to say "I guess you know better than all the experts that run the endowment", especially when JM's post said nothing about running the endowment (perhaps you don't see the distinction?) is IMHO inappropriate.
</p>
<p>You're right, I was a bit harsh. I stand by what I said, though - that opinion is based on ignorance of the math behind university endowments.</p>
<p>Her post was in fact intimately about how to run the endowment, since the issue of how much one removes from endowment principal is a huge part of endowment finance. That, and the fact that this is not a simple numbers game, and with the amount of any given endowment tied up for various named and directed donations, simply increasing the amount spent from the endowment would have even more severe consequences, requiring a larger relative percentage of unfettered endowment funds to be spent.</p>
<p>
To top it off, you add the classic university fundraising blurb regarding tuition and actual expenses as if it were fact. (hint: it is not. Most schools actually make a PROFIT on undergraduate instruction, not that you'd know so from either their PR materials).
</p>
<p>I'd love to see your math on that. Without going into a great deal of detail, I will simply say that family members have worked extensively with endowment administrators, development officers, and all the related people who actually do the math on endowment costs, annual giving, spending, financial aid and related issues. They all say the exact same thing I am - at least for Princeton.</p>
<p>So either they are all lying to me (unlikely, since there is no interest for them in misleading a family member), or you are incorrect (or maybe correct generally and incorrect specifically here). Given the facts of the situation, the latter is far more likely.</p>
<p>
So please, stick to what you know (i.e. not higher ed finance ) and show some respect for opinions different from your own.
</p>
<p>You are correct that I am not directly involved in this stuff, and that my opinion is thus derivative of things I have been told. However, I see no reason to doubt those things (and at one point I was shown actual numbers, that I have indeed since forgotten). So while I'm not exactly running the numbers at my fingertips here, I do know a bit about it (it being Princeton specifically).</p>
<p>And yes, I realize that what I've said is impossible to substantiate. I would be pointing that out if it were posted by someone else. Unfortunately, this is not something I can link to a citation for, so you can trust me, or not.</p>
<p>If jeepMOM's idea were financially feasible without reducing financial aid expenditures, it would be a bad idea - why do the wealthiest families (multimillionaires, remember) need any extra subsidy? As it stands, it is even worse - to subsidize tuition further, financial aid would have to be reduced. That is a flat out horrible idea, full stop.</p>
<p>What Princeton should do, is eliminate the tuition subsidy and increase financial aid commensurately. Then, the richest would pay full fare (which they are manifestly equipped to do), and far more middle (and even upper-middle/upper) class people would be subsidized as a result. Far better option. Won't happen unless other institutions take the same steps, because then Princeton would lose substantial cross-admits to almost everywhere. And it's a shame it won't happen. (Note: I say this as a student form a family who would probably pay significantly more were tuition increased like that, so I have a horse in the race. And more topically, my parents [who actually do the paying, lol] concur with my opinion)</p>