<p>This is a very interesting story from the Trenton (NJ) Times about what college life was like for black students at Princeton in the late 1960's, when their numbers were very small. Princeton University is honoring as "unsung heroes" local black families who welcomed the black students and gave them a "home away from home". It is very heartwarming but also amazing how much times have changed within our own lifetimes.</p>
<p>It's great to see that progress is being made. But, with respect to admission as it relates to socioeconomic status, the Ivies have not yet even begun to scratch the surface. Today, the wealth and "connected" still get preference.</p>
<p>The fact that 50-60% of all Ivy students pay "full tab" and another 20% have very little financial need, shows evidence that the Ivies favor the wealthy.</p>
<p>With bloated endowments in the billions of dollars, isn't it time for the Ivies to become tuition-free, thus giving all students, especially those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, a feeling of hope and encouragement that they can attend an Ivy League school?</p>
<p>You might argue that students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds would qualify for financial aid, so they should be encouraged to apply. But, with a sticker price of nearly $50,000 most of those students, simply as a matter of their perception, don't even bother to look at the Ivies.</p>
<p>Think of how much the quality of education at the Ivies would be enriched by having greater socioeconomic diversity. Children of investment bankers would be sitting in the same classrooms with children of single mothers in poverty, with children of custodians, with children of teachers, with children of grocery store cashiers, etc. After all, don't all of these people make up our society?</p>
<p>Wouldn't the Ivy grads have received a much more valuable education by being exposed to such a wide variety of people?</p>
<p>Old but wise:</p>
<p>Students from lower income families already get a full or nearly full ride. Are you suggesting that the 60% of students who can pay should also get a full ride?
On what grounds? Remember all these sons and daughters of billionnaires at HYP?</p>
<p>With their bloated endowments in the billions, I say that all Ivies should be tuition-free, but still charge room and board.</p>
<p>If the education is as great as most people say it is, and the grads go on to the plum jobs, go by the "honor" system grads will make a donation back to the school once they are settled in a career. The amount of the donation would be up to the donor.</p>
<p>By being tuition-free, students from ALL socioeconmic groups, not just the wealthy, as currently is the case, would truly feel as though an Ivy education is something to aspire to. </p>
<p>As I said in my previous post, think of how much more interesting the Ivies would be with a heterogeneous socioeconomic student body, instead of the homogeneous wealthy group that attends Ivies today. Also, think of the learning that would take place in the classrooms by having students from a wide range of backgrounds communicating with each other on a daily basis.
Also, think about the expanded knowledge students would gain through living together in dorms, participating in extracurricular organizations, etc.</p>
<p>The wealthy don't have a corner on the intelligence market. You could bring in a much more socioeconomically diverse student body, yet maintain the exact same academic profiles currently enjoyed by the Ivies. Yes, their rankings in US News would not drop!</p>
<p>If the Ivies truly want to earn prestige and respect from the general public, instead of deriving its respect from the past, implement this plan.</p>
<p>By the way, with bloated endowments in the billions, why do the Ivies charge nearly $50,000 per year? Is is because they know they are catering to the wealthy, who are willing to pay virtually any price, while the poor look at the sticker price and say to themselves, "don't even bother to look here."</p>
<p>Old but Wise:</p>
<p>Harvard has 6,000 undergrads. If 60% of them can pay full rides, that's around 3,600 students. At $45k per year, that's $152 million. Why should Harvard not collect $152 million from people who can afford to pay $45k a year? Do you consider that chump change?</p>
<p>You can do the same calculation for every other college that charges a similar amount. Hint: The Ivies are not the only ones.</p>
<p>marite: By doing away with tuition, Harvard's applicant pool would probably increase at least ten fold, thus allowing Harvard to attract a student body that would make the current student body look like amateurs. Most importantly, the applicant pool would truly reflect the socioeconomic makeup of our society, because cost would not be a concern.</p>
<p>Instead of being top-heavy with the current "cookie-cutter" type of student it currently serves (especially from a socioeconomic standpoint), the student body would come from socioeconomic backgrounds that would mimic those of our society. Yet, because of the ten-fold increase in applications, the profile of admitted freshmen would probably be much stronger than it currently is. The only difference would be that the students sitting in the classrooms at Harvard would now come from all walks of life, unlike the current Harvard situation. Imagine how much the quality of Harvard's learning would be enhanced, especially the learning that takes place from student to student interaction!</p>
<p>With the ability to attract a much more diverse, talented and interesting student body, professors who might currently avoid Harvard would be attracted to it. </p>
<p>Harvard's ability to survive financially would not be an issue. If the current graduates of Harvard are doing so well financially after graduation, just think of the jobs that grads of the "new and improved" Harvard would be able to land.......and, how much they would donate back to Harvard in order to keep the free tuition policy going perpetually. Grads of the "new Harvard" would probably donate more back to the school, since they would appreciate the fact that Harvard provided them with a free education.</p>
<p>The fact that they would be starting out with a $30 billion endowment doesn't hurt either!</p>
<p>What's the point of wanting to expand the pool if you cannot accommodate all the admissible applicants to start with?</p>
<p>You won't have a $30 billion endowment if you keep on giving away $152 millions per year to people who absolutely don't need it! Four years of $152 million--the cost of educating 3,600 students capable of paying full freight for four years will give you the endowment of some very respectable colleges.
It would represent nearly half the endowment (2005 figures) of top LACs such as Amherst of Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Let's not talk about Harvard. The cost of attending Amherst or Swarthmore is the same as Harvard's. The student population is the same in terms of educational profile and income (there may be a few more children of billionnaires at Harvard whose parents would not miss the odd $200k). Do you suggest that they should also let everyone in totally free? why only Harvard? or HYP? </p>
<p>You seem pretty cavalier about other people's money. Hmmm... Think what one could do with $152 million per year for quite a few years (not in perpetuity since I guarantee that Harvard would have to dip deep into its endowment in order to sustain this profligacy whose chief beneficiaries would be people who least need subsidizing).</p>
<p>The problem with American education is not at the college level; the admissions and financial aid policies of the top schools are only a minor contributing factor. The real problem lies in k-12 education. Subsidizing children of millionnaires and billionnaires will not help the kids in Appalachia or in inner-cities get a better education that would render them competitive for the top schools.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>By doing away with tuition, Harvard's applicant pool would probably increase at least ten fold....<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Wow. This year Harvard received 22,920 applications for the ~1650 slots in the freshman class. And you really think it would be a <em>good</em> thing if there were 230,000 kids competing for those 1650 slots? You think the obsession with Harvard is intense now, wait until we have nearly a quarter of million kids vying for the same few spots.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Most importantly, the applicant pool would truly reflect the socioeconomic makeup of our society, because cost would not be a concern.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Cost is <em>already</em> not a concern for poor kids. Students whose parents earn less $60K/year get a FULL RIDE at Harvard - tuition, room, board, books, everything. And many people earning more than that also get substantial finaid awards as well. Since poor people already go to Harvard free, how will giving free tuition to rich people encourage more poor people to apply?</p>
<p>You know there are some excellent colleges that are free. In addition to ther service academies, Cooper Union and Olin come to mind. I don't think there's any evidence that CU's and Olin's student bodies are a lot more diverse than MIT or Cal Tech or RISD or Pratt. (Cooper Union includes art as well as engineering.) </p>
<p>I do know a few kids whose parents forced them to go to Cooper Union or Olin though the kids wanted to go to MIT and got in. While my sample size is small, all of the kids forced to make this choice are from families that would have had to pay the sticker price for MIT.</p>
<p>coureur: You said: "Cost is already not a concern for poor kids who want to go to Harvard." What world are you living in? Or, have you been living in Cambridge for too long?</p>
<p>Do you really believe that the majority of this nation's poor think that Harvard is a financially feasible option for them?</p>
<p>Based on several of your posts, it sounds like you are very happy to keep Harvard "as is", a school which, without question, caters to the wealthy, connected, and privileged. Sure, there is a small percentage of students there who might be considered "poor", but 80% of its student body has little or no financial aid.</p>
<p>Do you believe that Harvard's student body, socioecomically, represents the socioeconomic makeup of our country?</p>
<p>Do you believe that there are poor students out there who have credentials equal to the students Harvard is currently admitting?</p>
<p>Do you believe that Harvard's learning environment would be enhanced by having a student body that reflects the makeup of our society?</p>
<p>Do you believe that more poor students would view Harvard as a possibility if it were tuition free?</p>
<p>I would appreciate it if you respond, one by one, to each of the above questions.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<br>
<p>No, you have changed my words. What I said was: "Cost is <em>already</em> not a concern for poor kids. Students whose parents earn less $60K/year get a FULL RIDE at Harvard - tuition, room, board, books, everything."</p>
<p>Which is perfectly true. Read this carefully: </p>
<br> [QUOTE=""]
<blockquote> <p>Sure, there is a small percentage of students there who might be considered "poor", but 80% of its student body has little or no financial aid.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This is simply wrong. As noted in the link above 2/3rds of Harvard students receive financial aid. And as the article says:"and the average grant award for next year is expected to be more than $33,000...." We can have a more meaningful discussion about the financial aspects of attending Harvard once you've got your facts straight.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Or, have you been living in Cambridge for too long?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I don't know what you are talking about. I live in San Diego.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Olin College:
Estimated Cost: Academic Year 2006–07</p>
<p>Below are estimated costs for the upcoming academic year. We expect nominal increases in these figures for subsequent years.
Billed expenses
Room $7,500<br>
Meal Plan $4,100 (Blue Plan)
(students choose plan) $3,750 (Silver Plan)
Laptop Purchase $1,250 (estimate on 1st two of four payments)
Health Insurance $682 (if needed)
Student Activity Fee $150<br>
Unbilled expenses
Books & Supplies $750 (estimate)
Travel & $1,500 (estimate)
Total Student Budget $48,032 (with Blue Meal Plan)
Olin Tuition Scholarship -32,100
Balance $15,932
[/quote]
Billed Expenses: $15,500</p>
<p>
[quote]
How much does it really cost to attend The Cooper Union?</p>
<pre><code>Tuition is listed at $30,000 per year. Every student receives a full tuition scholarship and is not responsible for tuition-related costs.
Cooper Union students are responsible for living and miscellaneous expenses. These include mandatory student fees (totaling $1,450 per year), room and board (about $13,000 per year), books and supplies (about $1,000-1,800 per year), and general living expenses (about $2,300 per year), totaling approximately $18,000 per year. In addition, international students are assessed a $1,600/year filing fee. All students must prove medical insurance coverage or participate in our medical insurance plan for a health services fee of $1,539/year.**
</code></pre>
<p>This is not to detract from Olin and Cooper Union. But three things need to be considered: 1. they are not entirely free. 2. They are much smaller. Cooper Union's total student body is 900, so the cost of providing free tuition comes to $28,800,000 per year. It's still a very sizable amount. 3. Both Olin and Cooper Union have a restricted range of majors and hence offerings and faculty, which considerably lowers their operational expenses. </p>
<p>For the class of '09 at Harvard:
[quote]
Harvard's financial aid program next year will be the most generous in its history, with $84.6 million in scholarships for undergraduates, a 56 percent increase over the past six years. Two-thirds of Harvard undergraduates receive some form of financial aid, including scholarships, loans, and jobs. The average total student aid package will be close to $30,000.
[/quote]
<a href="http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/05.12/01-yield.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/05.12/01-yield.html</a><br>
Obviously, the Harvard student body is much larger than at Cooper Union and at Olin.</p>
<p>If everyone at Harvard attended totally free, it would cost $27 millions+. If tuition were free for all, it would cost about $180 millions (at approximately $30k for tuition which is more than Cooper Union and less than Olin).</p>
<p>If we truly cared about African American students, we'd fix their crummy high schools.</p>
<p>Additional information:
[quote]
Two-thirds of Harvard students receive financial aid, and the average grant award for next year is expected to be more than $33,000, or 70 percent of the total cost of attendance. In the past decade, Harvard has reduced the median four-year debt for graduating seniors from more than $16,000 to $6,400 - less than one-third of the national average of $20,000.
[/quote]
<p>Since this thread began with Princeton, here is some information from its website:
[quote]
Princeton continues to enhance the economic diversity of its undergraduate population, as 55 percent of the freshman class enrolled in 2006 is receiving financial aid under the University’s groundbreaking “no loan” program.
[/quote]
[quote]
The percentage of students on financial aid in the class of 2010 is a substantial increase from 38 percent on financial aid in the class of 2001, the last class admitted before Princeton began revamping its aid program. The average aid package awarded to members of the class of 2010 is $29,786, compared to $15,064 for aid recipients in the class of 2001.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>weenie, I agree. From my post #7:
[quote]
The problem with American education is not at the college level; the admissions and financial aid policies of the top schools are only a minor contributing factor. The real problem lies in k-12 education. Subsidizing children of millionnaires and billionnaires will not help the kids in Appalachia or in inner-cities get a better education that would render them competitive for the top schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oops. I left out a zero in one of my numbers. If Harvard provided free tuition to all its 6,000+ students it would cost over $270 millions. Let's also keep in mind that the famed $30 billion endowment is split between professional schools as well as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences which includes Harvard College. The Harvard Law School, Medical School and Business School alone probably account for the lion's share of that endowment.</p>
<p>"Do you really believe that the majority of this nation's poor think that Harvard is a financially feasible option for them?"</p>
<p>They don't, but this is a marketing issue, not a financial aid issue. Harvard is free for this nation's poor. We need to do a lot more to get that message out. Making Harvard free for billionaires, too, would not solve the problem that poor kids and their teachers and guidance counselors don't know about the available financial aid.</p>
<p>"We need to do a lot more to get that message out."</p>
<p>Why? The real problem is that poor kids go to high schools that are so under-performing they don't have a snowball chance in hell of getting into an Ivy (or staying in, even if they were to get in). Oh, and they don't have money for music lessons, sports camps, language camps, international experiences...</p>
<p>And believe me, their guidance counselors know all about Ivy admissions - but how low in importance is it for them to get one or two kids into an Ivy when they are balancing loads of 300-500 kids, many with severe family, drug and substance abuse problems, or who move two or three times a year, kids who live in shelters, kids who are truant, and a drop out rate of over 50%...?</p>
<p>A lot is being done to get the message out. But Weenie's point stands. Getting poor kids into college, any college, preventing them from dropping out for a host of reasons, is more important than getting a kid or two into top schools.</p>
<p>"If we truly cared about African American students, we'd fix their crummy high schools."</p>
<p>??huh</p>