<p>The UC system is particularly inequitable, and downright stupid. That a family of 2 that earns $79,000 pays no tuition, and a family of 6 that earns $80,001 pays $13,877 in tuition – some of which is diverted to subsidize the $79K family – is absurd.</p>
<p>“The issue raised in this article is whether it is fair to be raising the overall tuition to fund the FA. In contrast, some schools fund their FA from endowed funds.”</p>
<p>It’s not a matter of “fair”. What might seem “fair” for individuals may run at cross purposes to the needs of the state.</p>
<p>BB, neither did the Occupy UC participants understand the movement. ;)</p>
<p>I don’t know about “fair”, but a good question, to me, is why do the public institutions fund need-based aid at all? </p>
<p>Is it to help in-state low income students receive an education that will eventually benefit the state through taxes/higher income of that college educated student? </p>
<p>Is it to attract high achieving students who would go elsewhere (maybe a well endowed private with generous aid), lowering the ranking of the state U and the general level of scholarship?</p>
<p>All of the above?</p>
<p>I just look at it as a tax.
We are always saying how great the educational system is elsewhere,but whats the tax rate in Europe, 75%?</p>
<p>I like the all money is green and goes in the pot theory too. UC made a big mistake in their fall off a cliff system. Tuition and fin aid should be handled separately. All instate should pay same tuition and then some get fin aid to reduce the cost based on analyzed need via a sophisticated system. In this case the black box approach is better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I used the UC Davis financial aid estimator to see if there is a large “cliff”.
<a href=“http://financialaid.ucdavis.edu/aidEstimator/Dependent.aspx[/url]”>http://financialaid.ucdavis.edu/aidEstimator/Dependent.aspx</a></p>
<p>I used a dependent student, with married parents both contributing income, $10,000 in income taxes, $100,000 in assets, no student income, income tax, or assets, 4 people in household, 1 in college, and on-campus.</p>
<p>With $79,000 in income, the estimated gift aid is $10,218, leaving a net price of $20,985. With $81,000 in income, the estimated gift aid is $9,415, leaving a net price of $21,788.</p>
<p>So there does not appear to be a huge “cliff”, although $803 higher cost with $2,000 greater income is like a 40% marginal tax rate.</p>
<p>(Make sure that your assumptions are correct before getting riled up.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It varies by country.</p>
<p>[Tax</a> rates of Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe]Tax”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they are. If the fungible $/big pot theory is really the practice, then isn’t it a fraud to claim that 33 cents of every new dollar is going to FA? Is UC really just <em>taking out</em> the equivalent funds from the big pot and using it for something else when they put the new dollars in? Or is 33% of the big pot used for FA, regardless of the size of the pot? I would be interested to know what is really happening.</p>
<p>Hey, this is America. Fairness is our middle name right? Obviously we should reduce college tuition to the level any accepted student can pay, and that’s the going rate for everyone. If the public universities come up short on cash, their mates at the Capitol can institute a tax on illegal drug sales to close the gap. Call it a Use Tax. Why should Pablo Escobar’s kin keep all the money … they’re not even American!</p>
<p>Oh, your question was serious? You’re really asking if Richie Rich and Trailer Gertie should pay equal tuition? Seriously? It’s an excellent idea if you don’t want Trailer Gertie attending university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So it would be preferable to have lower class families grousing about not having a college education?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you add that 40% marginal tax rate to the Federal and state income tax rates, and the Social Security and Medicare payroll tax rates, you may a total marginal tax rate of about 70% for a middle class family. If you punish people for producing they will produce less.</p>
<p>Evidence?..</p>
<p>MSNDIS–going on vacations and buying the latest of everything won’t affect their financial aid in the slightest because if they can afford to do all of that to the extent you claim, their annual income will preclude them from getting any financial aid anyway. </p>
<hr>
<p>Absolutely correct.</p>
<p>I worked in a public university, and I can assure you that low-income families still had to pay something (they definitely weren’t getting enough aid to cover dorm costs). Yes, the middle class students … including lower middle class … didn’t get much in the way of aid … just loans. But I can assure you that there were no families who were “wasting money on vacations & cars” (to paraphrase) who were getting anything but loans, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s 33% of just the new, higher fee, not the total pot. So, if fees are raised by $1,000, for example, one third of those new dollars are applied to financial aid, which in essence shields the poorest families (however defined) from the increase. Of course, the full payors pay the full increase more (or go elsewhere), and the “middle incomers” (again, however defined) pay a portion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The typical need-based aid formula (fafsa and private schools) is ~50% on marginal, after tax income (above the protected thresholds).</p>
<p>If you think it’s unfair, quit your middle class job, get two minimum wage ones, work 60-70 hours a week, give up your health care, give away your IRA (poor people don’t have them) and your pension, and move into an apartment that requires 40-60% of your income…</p>
<p>And collect that there financial aid. It will be fair.</p>
<p>The policy change doesnt have much effect on low income students, they still pay EFC, and, unless the school is need aware they still get a spot. </p>
<p>The real issue is how much of a subsidy we give to those who pay COA. In state tuition is basically a subsidy from the government. So is primary public education. Everyone gets it. If you have ever spent a day in public school quit complaining about people being on the dole, because you are one of them. Yes, the poor pay less, but at least they are needs tested. You can be a billionaire and still pay in state tuition. </p>
<p>When a state decides to reduce tuition using funds previously earmarked they are increase the subsidey for COA students. It would seem they want to make school look cheaper. Since they give out less aid, its an illusion at least for the FA students.</p>
<p>What would really be fair is for EVERYONE to get a state voucher for college. That way the Upper East Side student choosing Sarah Lawrence (COA $61K) and the South Bronx student attending Westchester CC (COA $3K) would both get their educations fully paid. What could be fairer than that? </p>
<p>Personally I think the state should also pay housing costs for the very wealthy. Why should Donald Trump have to pay for his penthouse digs while the state covers housing costs for some homeless man in Queens?</p>
<p>kkmama “Helping the low income students attend college DOES increase their income potential.”</p>
<p>It certainly has the potential to increase income potential. Financial aid in the form of loans has the potential to add economic hardship to those students who don’t get degrees that lead to well paying jobs or wind up dropping out of college. A not inconsequential portion of low income students aren’t going to be academically ready to attend 4 year universities. In Virginia we are fortunate to have a community college system that allows guaranteed admission to a 4 year state public university if certain GPA criteria are met. It’s a lot cheaper to do the CC route to the 4 year university. In addition, if the low income student doesn’t make it past the first 2 years then the cost outlay is minimized. So, at least in my state we could meet the goal of getting more low income people into college but in a way that minimizes the tuition impact for other students.</p>