SAT test and wealth.

Parents Forum
161

<p>Just a heads up for anyone wanting accurate information - you want to start by doing a search for the phrase "common data set" at any college web site, or by Googling that phrase in combination with the college name. If that isn't productive, search the acronym "OPIR". ("office of planning & institutional research). As I've noted already, for Barnard that takes you to the page at <a href="http://www.barnard.edu/opir/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.barnard.edu/opir/&lt;/a> with the bar chart and highlighted yellow square inscribed "44% of Full Time, First Year students rec. Barnard Aid", as well as links to the common data set and Barnard's lovely 77 page "Data Book". </p>

<p>Some colleges put out more hard data than others; the IPEDS Cool web site at <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/&lt;/a> is the next stop for verifiable data, though unfortunately they revised the site about a year ago to give less access to detail than it once did. [The charts on that site tell us that in 2004-2005, 60% of Barnard students received "any aid".... but only 41% received Barnard institutional grants.]</p>

<p>I agree with Mini that the best proxy for "low income" is to look a those who receive Pell grants - ("Federal grants" on the IPEDs Cool graphs), though of course I also agree that there are many who miss the cutoff for federal aid but still are very needy. I think it would be nicer if colleges reported income bands & percentage & average aid dollars for each band, just as they do with SAT scores. If I can figure out that 10% of Banard students had SAT scores between 500-599.... why can't I find out the percentage of Barnard financial aid recipients whose parents earn between $50-$59.9K? Income distribution figures would do a lot more to demystifying the process.</p>

<p>The problem with the current figures is that they mislead, because with skyrocketing tuition & board costs, many kids from relatively affluent backgrounds will qualify for small amounts of aid. </p>

<p>My kids both grew up in a world where they assumed they were middle class but financially better off than most, because demographically they probably were within the upper third or better of the kids in their public schools. For every friend they had who seemed richer, there were many who seemed a lot poorer. College is different: my d. not only falls with the 44% who qualify for institutional grant aid, but it seems that she also seems to be in the bottom half of that group -- so while some may look at it is as "almost half" of the students are needy, to my daughter's eyes it feels like 3/4 of the students have a lot more money -- a pretty overwhelming majority.</p>

<p>I think the rising college costs have brought about another sad reality: the rich keep getting richer. Barnard publishes historic figures -- <a href="http://www.barnard.edu/opir/pdf/fin_aid.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.barnard.edu/opir/pdf/fin_aid.pdf&lt;/a> - from that I can see that the percentage of entering students receiving Barnard grant aid the year my daughter entered (44%) was the same as with the entering class of 1997 - but their average family income ($63.5K - well above what I make) -- is at an all time high. The total fees charged students (tuition, fees, room & board) in '97 was under $30K -- for 2006 that number was almost $45K. So now that 44% of aid-receiving students includes a whole cohort who would not have qualified or needed aid in the past. We can only speculate as to percentages represented in that cohort. </p>

<p>However, I can see by comparing data from different Barnard-published reports that Barnard's income from nettuition & fees has gone up by $10 million in the past 5 years; their total expenditures for grant aid increase by only $6 million in that time frame. So its pretty obvious that a lot more dollars are coming from students than are being paid to them. </p>

<p>I would I assume that I'd probably see the same profile looking at data from any other elite college. There is a very significant difference in the level of affluence required to pay $120K over 4 years for a college education and that required to pay $200K. So Mini is right -- no matter what p.r. the college puts out about wanting to attract more low-income students, the skyrocketing costs simply create an ever-more affluent student body, as more and more moderate income families get priced out of the market.</p>

162

<p>From my excerpt from the Barnard website, Barnard DOES claim that 56% receive need-based aid. It just does not claim that Barnard gives out need-based aid to 56%. For the more accurate information, you can't rely on its website, you have to do your own digging.</p>

<p>
[quote]
One thing I like about Barnard is that they are very transparent about data and documentation -- they aren't perfect, but they are very forthright with their data.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>hmmmm.....</p>

163

<p>Marite, I'm saying that if you look at the DATA page you get the data. The 55% who receive aid from all sources seems to be an understatement - the IPEDS Cool site shows that number was 60% in 2004-2005, a year when only 41% receive grant-based aid. So the problem is that you misunderstood the statement, which happened because you didn't look at the detailed information. I assume that the 15-19% who get financial aid but not from Barnard are getting it from outside sources, like private scholarships, National Merit, TAPP, or other state-sponsored programs. My son got money from a now defunct program in California called Governors Scholarshare, and also an Americorps educational benefit -- I'll bet Barnard has a few students who opt for a gap year with Americorps before starting college. It is very possible for a student to qualify for need-based financial aid from outside programs based on their FAFSA EFC, but not qualify at Barnard when institutional methodology applied. </p>

<p>It doesn't change the analysis or the setting. For the most part, that 15-19% who rely on outside aid are the upper ranges of income for students relying on financial aid -- the lower down the income spectrum, the more difficult it would be to fail to qualify for Barnard grant aid. </p>

<p>That's why I said that reporting by income bands would be more helpful. There is also a significant segment of upper-middle income earners who qualify for need-based aid by virtue of the number of kids they have in college. </p>

<p>If you read my post above, I spelled out where to find the hard data. That is on the Barnard web site: <a href="http://www.barnard.edu/opir%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.barnard.edu/opir&lt;/a> -- If you were doing what I did and Googling "OPIR + college name" for every college you were interested in, that's would be the first place you would come to. Since you don't need financial aid, I wouldn't expect you to be doing that -- but serious financial aid seekers do know to look for specific data. </p>

<p>I mean -- Barnard wouldn't let me get away with sending them a letter mentioning how much I earn in passing -- they want to see a detailed financial aid application and tax returns -- so of course I'm not going to rely on general remarks on a web page which is obviously the on-line version of a brochure geared to parents. "Quality of attention and concern for detail go into each Barnard student’s education" - picture of verdant college lawn taken with camera strategically placed behind tree -- references to "lifelong value" of education. That's PR, not facts. I didn't pay attention to all that pablum about women's colleges either. </p>

<p>Just to make it clear: whenever I quote a particular figure in support of an assertion about a college, I check the real data. So I wouldn't say 44% or 55% of anything in a post to this board without going to appropriate data sources -- for example when I said that 10% of Barnard students have SAT scores of 500-599 I pulled that from the common data set. So when other parents post specific stats like a percentage or an SAT range, I assume they are drawing from such sources. That's why I was puzzled about the 55% figure --it is not the number published on the data pages at Barnard or in the CDS.</p>

164

<p>I took the 56% figure from the BARNARD website. I did not invent it. You asked where I'd gotten it, I provided the source. </p>

<p>It does not matter what IPEDS or CDS report. I expect that most families with college age children do not even know about the Common Data Set or IPEDS. But they know about college websites. And I expect that every family interested in financial aid looks at the college's website. And most of them trust what a college says on its own website. What I get from you (as well as from Mini) is that what colleges say on their own websites is not to be relied on. Because it's PR. Because they're not being "forthright." At least not with prospective parents and students. It takes more than critical reading skills to get to the correct statistics.</p>

165

<p>Actually the Common Data Sets are a bit more transparent, though Marite, you are right, most parents want ever look at them. Line H2(a) gives the number of matriculating students. Line H2(e) gives the number of students receiving need-based aid. Use H2(e) as the numerator and H2(a) as the denominator and you have something accurate. Note, however, that some small amount of the need-based aid awarded comes from scholarships awarded by the colleges themselves, but which is not, strictly speaking, institutional support. Williams, for example, has the Tyng Bequest, some schools get aid from Kiwanis, etc. But it wouldn't make any difference from the student's (or family's) point of view. But is should be noted that H2(e) is all need-based aid regardless of source. </p>

<p>And finally (a big canard), there are many colleges that, when they say they are providing "financial aid", that includes folks receiving only loans. </p>

<p>"The Barnard website says that 56% of its students receive financial aid. It does not say that Barnard gives financial aid to 56% of its students. I suspect if we were to look up other websites, we would find similar careful phrasing."</p>

<p>As a rule, don't trust ANYTHING that the colleges put out in their propaganda. Go to the Common Data Set - that's why it was created. </p>

<p>"I think it would be nicer if colleges reported income bands & percentage & average aid dollars for each band."</p>

<p>They do, but in a funny way, and it is very imprecise (though there once was a website that actually broke down those who received federal loans by income by income bands, and it was a real eyeopener - especially at a time that all prestige colleges maximized resources by offering EVERYONE who qualified a federally subsidized loan.) Take Amherst: 54% receive no aid. For the "average" family with "average" assets (with many exceptions on both sides), that means they are top 3%ers - income a minimum of $160k. If you overlay how national family income of top 3%ers spreads over the top income range, and normalized it for the Amherst population, you can pretty surely say that the median income of Amherst families is roughly $200k (maybe a little more). Half more than that, lots significantly more. We also know that 17% receive Pell Grants (i.e. they are in the bottom two quintiles, $40k or so and below). Add the two together, and it leaves 29% for those with incomes between $40k and $160k. That's all that can be known with a reasonable degree of certainty, though there is other data whereby you can abstract those in the top quintile (but not top 3%.) Let's not go there for a minute. Because, for purposes of this discussion (that is, the one on social class), one can quickly see that there is heavily bifurcated campus. </p>

<p>(You could do the same for Barnard (you'd probably come to the conclusion that the median Barnard student family is wealthier (though probably not by much) than the Amherst student family.) At H., you'd find the median family slightly less wealthy (but the AVERAGE, I would guess, well higher, but I'd only be able to say that based on reputation, not data.)</p>

<p>And, yes, prestige private colleges, such as my alma mater, lie. Somehow they feel a social pressure or social obligation to do so, though I'm not sure why. On the whole, they are less economically diverse than they were 25 years ago (and I'd hazard a guess that this is a prime reason why their median SAT scores have, on the whole, gone up. But I can't prove it.)</p>

166

<p>Mini:

[quote]
As a rule, don't trust ANYTHING that the colleges put out in their propaganda. Go to the Common Data Set - that's why it was created.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's what bothers me. Until I got onto CC, I never knew there was such a thing as the CDS, and I am pretty well educated and familiar with universities and colleges. I would expect that 90% of prospective students and their families--if not more-- haven't heard of it either and do not think they have a reason to disbelieve what they read on college websites. </p>

<p>By the way, today's NYT Business section has an article about how various companies are making huge profits from making loans to college students at higher rates of interest than for federal loans. I've only skimmed the first couple of paragraphs but it makes for depressing reading.</p>

167

<p>Marite, to a parent who is looking for need based financial aid, the percentages are irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me whether 20% or 90% of the students at Barnard get financial aid, what matters is how much money they will give me and my daughter. So the only thing I care about is whether or not they guarantee to meet full need; the methodology they use (FAFSA or CSS Profile); and whether a college offers merit aid that my kid might qualify for. The CDS data is useful for other analysis, but it has nothing to do with the answer as to whether a kid is going to get aid.</p>

<p>NYU has a much higher percentage of aid-getting students --71% of their students receive some aid from some source -- and 58% get NYU grant aid. Does that make NYU a good choice for need-based financial aid? No - everyone knows that their financial aid is terrible; their average grant amount is $9500 -- which is about what they offered my d. after she appealed the initial award -- and that doesn't make a dent in the COA.</p>

<p>As to the NYT article you describe, Barnard took initiative in contacting families who indicated they were looking at private lenders to provide counseling to make sure they understood the pitfalls. See: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101759.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101759.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

168

<p>Mini, you are making an unwarranted assumption that you can project family income bands by looking at the Pell grant numbers. Families who have multiple siblings attending college simultaneously will qualify for Pell grants even though they are not low income -- that is what happened with my daughter and it is a fairly common situation. That is, a family with an EFC of $7500 may easily have 3 kids who each get Pell grants -- so you really can't extrapolate numbers from that.</p>

169

<p>Of course this is true, but at both ends of the spectrum. Whether one would have to adjust the bands is just not known. And (as you well point out), colleges are as interested in ASSETS as they are in income. There is no prestige private college in America that assumes one is supposed to pay out of current income. We do know, for example, that a the median family with a $160k income on average will have four times as much in the way of assets as an $80k one, and that at $240k it is about 8 times the assets. But of course there will be the family that made no money until they were 55 and now makes $300k a year, but has no savings or assets. Flipside is the divorced parent with the $700k home but only $60k in income. </p>

<p>Which, again in getting back to the social class distinctions, the income bands radically underestimate what could be the real class distinctions that appear at prestige privates (and why I think my "entitlement" index was in fact both more accurate and more sensitive in picking up these distinctions than the income data.)</p>

<p>As per the NYU situation, again a more accurate read can be had by taking the total amount of institutional need-based aid and dividing by the total enrolled student body. But even that doesn't always work. George Washington, for example, has a huge amount listed in need-based aid (and a very significant amount in merit aid as well), which would put it among the national leaders. However, their cost-of-attendance is also the highest in the country, so in fact they only meet 93% of need. (But there's a caveat to that too - if you add in the merit aid, they are well over 100% making them more generous than any of the Ivies or prestige LACs.)</p>

<p>In other words - all the data provide are indicators. They neither account for individual differences (as you note), nor do they deal with factors that aren't even measured (like assets). But, taken together, I THINK (but can't prove) that they provide a pretty good read on the degree of social class distinctions one is likely to find (with the caveat that the college has it in its power on campus to mitigate them somewhat.)</p>

170

<p>Calmom:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Mini, re your post #145, I don't know where Marite got her information, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't from a Barnard site or publication.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are once again shifting the terms of the discussion. THIS is what I was responding to when I posted the excerpt from the Barnard website. </p>

<p>
[quote]
At Barnard, we admit students without regard to their financial need—and provide admitted students who demonstrate eligibility with financial aid. Approximately 56 percent of Barnard students receive financial aid; many receive scholarships or grants (which do not have to be repaid). The average family income for students receiving aid directly from Barnard is $53,000. For more information on financial aid (including applications and detailed policies), click here.

[/quote]

<a href="http://alum.barnard.edu/site/PageSer...r_financialaid%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://alum.barnard.edu/site/PageSer...r_financialaid&lt;/a> </p>

<p>I don't know what is so difficult to grasp. Your whole recent post is an attempt to play down the fact that the information I got came straight from the Barnard website and that it, --not the CDS, not IPEDS Cool-- is what any prospective family in search of information about financial aid at Barnard will be reading first, and probably last. </p>

<p>Your "pretty sure" in this instance is as shaky as your knowledge of my life experience. Give it up.</p>

171

<p>wow marite !!! I have never 'read' you this worked up.</p>

172

<p>I understand why privalte, elite colleges may wish to take steps to be inclusive with URM and low-income students. I see no reason why these colleges should strive for equal representation across the economic spectrum.</p>

173

<p>What do you think about this: </p>

<p>
[quote=William Fitzsimmons, Harvard dean of admissions and financial aid]
We will be aided in our new outreach program by ground-breaking research by Freed Professor of Economics Caroline M. Hoxby ’88 and Larsen Professor of Public Policy Christopher N. Avery ’88, which will allow us to identify unusually promising students from communities that rarely or never send applicants to the College or its peer institutions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519210%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519210&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

174

<p>Something my d's college has been doing for 30 years, and Amherst for much of the past decade. So what else is new? I wish them well. They don't have to do this. It's a good thing. But Winston and Hill's studies indicate that, just looking at SAT scores, those students were there all the time. </p>

<p>"I see no reason why these colleges should strive for equal representation across the economic spectrum."</p>

<p>I don't either.</p>

175

<p>padad, I agree with your post 172. </p>

<p>mini, you talk out of both sides of your mouth with regard to this issue, & you always have. You claim that elite colleges are just so full of it (i.e., "propaganda," your word) that they are institutions which are available to high-achieving low-income students. Yet the enrollment proves otherwise, since I happen to know specific students, & their economic circumstances, who are studying there. I know Harvard is, Princeton is, Yale is, Penn is, & Columbia is. Are these campuses one-third or one-fourth low income? Of course not. These U's are not claiming that. They have not said that. But go check out the Columbia forum on CC, and see how people are planning to budget their money this yr, & what the standard is for "having a lot of" spending money.</p>

<p>My d's friends on campus are not so gauche as to discuss each other's family's income. However, judging by how they also must budget, judging by the backgrounds of these students, judging by the occupations of their parents (which have been revealed), my d is NOT an anomaly. She knows middle class, upper middle class, and lower middle class students, who socialize together and are all equallly at home on campus.</p>

<p>So first of all, you deny that there is economic breadth at elite colleges (which is false), then, when someone points out that the breadth is there but limited, you say you have no objection to that. </p>

<p>If you go over to the CC finan. aid forum, you'll see how much of the discussion is really about the high cost of college for practically everyone these days, except those who are truly comfortable. Lots of families with at least healthy incomes, and then some, struggle with affordability -- those who have planned, those who haven't planned, those with many options, those with few options. </p>

<p>I also think these posters on that forum are very sharp with some of their suggestions & complaints about the inequities of the FINANCIAL AID methodologies. Now, if you want to start there, I'm in agreement that admission is one thing, affordability is another. I don't think the elites are failing to admit enough low-income; I think they're failing to lead in the area of financial aid reform, when it comes to the whole serpentine process & the contradictions within that process, some of which is the result of bad decisions by rich U.S. senators, outdated assumptions, etc.</p>

<p>There is a reason why elite campuses are "much less diverse" (in terms of <em>proportionality</em> of all economic classes, not the absolute representation of those classes) than when you attended Williams. Your generation may have been the last in recent historical memory to enjoy a softer cost of living environment than what was true incrementally 30 yrs. ago, again 25 yrs ago, & still again 20 yrs. ago. Real wages are deflated, relative to the COL in this country, since those time increments (& in each case of those increments). Further the jumps among these 20-30 yr platforms have been more sudden than they were pre-30 yrs ago, with less adjustment time for the American family. Career & housing decisions cannot accommodate to relatively rapid changes in the economy, unless one is already fairly high income. And <em>That</em> is why you see less diversity economically today in private colleges, esp. the elites.</p>

<p>Relative to your adolescence (and mine), housing inflation is extreme. But just as important, again, has been the variability in the housing market over relatively short periods of time. Combine that with changes in governmental policies in support of higher education, as well as the presence of the echo boom & the significant waves of immigration (including educated immigrants seeking higher ed), and there are many fewer financing options for the typical American family. Only the significantly higher income have a lot left over for private education after housing, transportation & food costs, and often not just for private, but for public institutions. Several upper-middle income families I know have recently toyed with having an only child live at home & commute to the nearby flagship public, "to save money."</p>

<p>I do not hold the elite U's accountable for the pitfalls in capitalism, or for governmental policies which actually support those pitfalls (i.e., supporting extreme advantages to corporations, etc, & which disadvantage the average consumer & student). </p>

<p>But I'll say this again: I am hardly the first person on CC, nor the last, to point out that even with my D's full Regents at U.C., the same financial aid forms that gave her a full ride at 3 elite U's in the Northeast, also would have cost us more for her to attend U.C. & board there than at any of those 3 private colleges. It's not because of "propaganda" that she's happily at one of those 3 now. It's because they put their money where their mouth was.</p>

176

<p>As to your last point, mine too. And I am grateful for that. Which is why I don't understand the need for the propaganda - the truth is what it is. Give people the truth without embellishment, and let them make good decisions. Stopping the propaganda would be very simple: use the data that they themselves bury in their own Common Data Set, and use it in their promotional materials and on their websites, and provide a scattergram of those who receive need-based aid by income. Princeton is a model citizen in this regard, and should be praised highly for it.</p>

<p>There are FAR more financing options available when one owns a $700,000 house free and clear than there used to be. Increases in cost of attendance at prestige privates has been lower than the rate of inflation in the income/assets of those in the top 3% for two decades now.</p>

<p>I have no need for any of the prestige privates to admit more low-income students. As I've written repeatedly, Penn's loss is UCLA's gain. That's their business, and their money, and they can do with it what they please. Really, my only complaint - as an alum - is that the list prices are far, far too low - I'm not particularly happy that the largest part of my alumni contribution goes to subsidize the 50%+ students who require no financial aid - I'd much prefer the list prices were higher, and that many of them DID receive financial aid, though I do take some perverse pleasure in subsidizing the millionaires' kids.</p>

<p>I think Calmom's concerns are real, and ones that I share - it was why I tried to construct an "entitlement" index to begin with. The median income and assets of the student family of the student attending my alma mater (roughly $250k in income, and assets perhaps 14-16X) is so far from that of a middle income student (median family income being roughly $55k) that they inhabit different universes. THAT'S WHY THE COLLEGES WANT THE LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME STUDENTS - to broaden the perspective of the student bodies, and specifically of the prime consumers. And i don't see anything wrong with that.</p>

177

<p>I've enjoyed reading this thread, except where it has become too personal. The thread has had some topic drift into some interesting issues. I'll see how different colleges work for my family in the next several years. </p>

<p>I did want to point out, as I tried to in earlier posts, the fallacy underlying the Web magazine article that prompted this thread. The SAT tests themselves do NOT, particularly, operate to keep mostly high-income students in college. Economic factors much more basic than standardized tests keep mostly high-income students in college. If a college has ANY kind of admission requirement other than low income itself, that requirement will be easier for children from high-income families to meet than for children from low-income families. College students mostly come from the top of their high school classes (as some back and forth in this thread showed) because high-income students find it easier to reach the top half of their high schools' grade distributions. </p>

<p>Even open-admission colleges </p>

<p><a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/student/apply/the-application/53.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/student/apply/the-application/53.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>don't get their students only from the bottom half of the family income distribution, because students from REALLY poor families often think they can't interrupt working for money long enough to pursue a college degree.</p>

178

<p>"THAT'S WHY THE COLLEGES WANT THE LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME STUDENTS - to broaden the perspective of the student bodies, and specifically of the prime consumers."</p>

<p>Exactly. And they're getting them. And they ARE contributing to the broadening of the perspectives of the student bodies. Why do keep denying that this is happening? Is it not happening enough for you? Fast enough for you? Just because the CDS stats are not on the college website's home page does not mean that they are being "hidden" from the general public. As marite points out, the stats are dry, and are not meaningful enough for the typical student or parent surfer to appreciate them as an initial point of information. Once the basics are apparent, then a surfer is free to surf elsewhere for corroborating or contradictory info.</p>

<p>Tokenadult:
What qualifies in your eyes as "REALLY poor families"? What would be the numbers or variables that define that group?</p>

179

<p>Re post 173, I expect Fitzsimmons was thinking about the work Hoxby has done on school choice and charter schools.
<a href="http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/hoxbydec2006.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/hoxbydec2006.pdf&lt;/a>
By the way, Hoxby has left Harvard for Stanford. A huge loss for Harvard.</p>

180

<p>
[quote]
"THAT'S WHY THE COLLEGES WANT THE LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME STUDENTS - to broaden the perspective of the student bodies, and specifically of the prime consumers."</p>

<p>Exactly. And they're getting them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Starting last year, families with incomes below $40,000 were expected to pay nothing for their child’s college education. In addition, required contributions were greatly reduced for families making between $40,000 and $60,000 per year.</p>

<p>The Admissions Office estimates that almost 360 students in the Class of 2009 will qualify for aid under the new HFAI standards—a full 22 percent more than the Class of 2008.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=507540%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=507540&lt;/a>
Published On Thursday, May 05, 2005 12:00 AM</p>

<p>Since eligibility for HFAI has been raised from $40k to $60k, the percentage of students on HFAI has risen (I don't have the exact percentage). While this does not reflect the socio-economic profile of the US population, it still means that there is a substantial number of students on full financial aid, enough, I would suspect, to form a critical mass.</p>

<p>Some data from the Harvard Fact Book for 2006-2007. The Fact Book is published by the Office of Institutional Research. The figures apply only to the College and are quoted in millions.</p>

<p>Grants:
Harvard: $82,548; Federal Govt: $6,228; Other $10,996 Total: $99,772.</p>

<p>Loans:
Harvard: $3.077; Federal Govt: $12,963; Other: $4,700. Total: $20,740</p>

<p>This suggests that the amount of financial aid in outright grants dwarfs the amount in loans.</p>