<p>So again, mini, you contradict yourself. Elsewhere & formerly on CC you have bemoaned the supposed reduction in economic diversity on elite campuses (vs. your generation). Yet you also say that you have no problem with this supposed lack of diversity. Which is it?</p>
<p>And if your main concern is with low sticker price, how would a 70K sticker price increase the economic diversity of the student body?</p>
<p>I also don't think you get my last point. You reversed it. It's not that Penn's loss is UCLA's gain. It's that UC (LA's, Berkeley's) loss is Princeton's, Yale's, Penn's, & Harvard's gain when they offer better (more complete & more non-loan) aid for the same student, and they do. But as I was saying, a reform in methodology would correct this.</p>
<p>I meant families whose children think they can't interrupt working to go to college are (functionally, for these purposes) really poor families. I didn't have a specific income range in mind, but economists have found that many poor young people who would be abundantly eligible for financial aid for college attendance still think they would hurt their families too much by not working for income.</p>
<p>"There are FAR more financing options available when one owns a $700,000 house free and clear than there used to be."</p>
<p>But lots of even upper-middle-income people don't own them free & clear, and/or have had to use equity to pay for educational needs of more than one child. (Not all of the equity should go to education, necessarily, if there are several attending.) Again, if you traveled over the CC financial aid forum, you will see whereof I speak.</p>