<p>The possible continuing resentment about that loss of entitlement and a desire to return to those old days is probably one reason all of them and their upper-middle class hanger-ons disdained talk about/emphasis on grades or SAT/SSAT scores for HS/college admissions as “too hyper-competitive” and “unseemly”.* </p>
<p>In many ways, it’s not too different from a 19th century aristocratic British Army officer justifying the old purchase system where one became a commissioned officer solely by paying a substantial deposit to the crown and passing a background check to minimize entry of officer aspirants from the “lower orders”. Heh…at least folks like him were honest about regarding talk about merit as “nonsensical poppycock”. </p>
<p>Of course, one consequence of having such a system is having aristocrats like Lord Cardigan of the Charge of the Light Brigade fame demonstrating his dilettantism in situations which cost many lives and public embarrassment for British arms. </p>
<ul>
<li>Personally, I’m somewhere in the middle between GPA/SAT uber alles and holistic/legacy admissions on steroids where GPA/SAT factors are completely ignored for those from well-off/well-connected enough families.</li>
</ul>
<p>I don’t know. I wouldn’t have thought to check an email account for a school that I’m not yet actually attending. Maybe once just for a whee!!! factor, but certainly not thinking people would be sending important emails there as opposed to the email address I likely provided during the application process. They don’t send letters regarding what’s still needed?</p>
<p>Isn’t that where many highly selective colleges’ admissions processes are at now? I.e. almost everyone still has to meet a fairly high courses/grades/tests standard, but those with sufficiently desired-by-the-college inherited non-merit characteristics (developmental, legacy, celebrity, etc.) have a substantial advantage over others when being selected from the still-very-large-pool of applicants meeting the courses/grades/tests standard; the only similarly advantageous characteristic that comes from one’s own ability and effort is being a recruited athlete.</p>
<p>^agreed, 100%. I don’t mean to keep harping on my situation, but (see post #121) my point is – Emory’s treatment of this girl is not an isolated incident. They mistrust financial details for the middle class too. So in a way, they could say they treat everyone the same – they don’t believe anyone’s statement of income or assets.</p>
<p>I think they have to stop pretending they’re needs blind.</p>
<p>Apparently not. The transition to the app phase email to the accept/attending phase email is bumpy for a lot of students, not only this one low income one. That’s why I made my suggestion about automating acceptance of the address change :)</p>
<p>In 2006 Harvard announced that families earning less than $60K were not expected to contribute. Meanwhile it has continued to raise the full-pay tuition faster than inflation or average family income, giving some credence to the idea that full-pays are increasingly subsidizing other students. Of course, since money is fungible and since universities use </p>
<p>(1) tuition
(2) federal student aid
(3) research grants
(4) endowment funds </p>
<p>to pay for </p>
<p>(1) teaching
(2) research</p>
<p>there is no clearcut answer to who or what is being subsidized. There would be less griping about generous financial aid to low-income students if tuition for high-income students were not going through the roof.</p>
<p>And yet, other than the same 3-4 people on these threads, there isn’t much griping about it at all. </p>
<p>There’s always NYU…sky high tuition and very little financial aid, where rich kids can be assured that “their” tuition isn’t subsidizing anyone else’s education. Of course, not so many good students WANT to go to NYU and I’d bet good money that their rep for stingy financial aid is part of the reason.</p>
<p>I heard some stuff that Harvard is looking to do a lot of residential development in Brighton - I wonder if that’s to generate profits for the property that they have quietly purchased over the years - or if it’s for their own use.</p>
<p>Others are suggesting that there be MORE support provided to these students than what it is provided to the general population. I say no to that. Being provided free (or nearly free) tuition is support enough. After that is their job to sink or swim just like everyone else. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a lot more than ability to afford tuition that determines whether ANY student is successful. When did we become a society where nobody is permitted to fail? If a student fails after being provided free tuition we should look to what that student did that caused them to fail, not looking to take more money out of an already limited pot to help them succeed. It is their life. If they don’t follow simple directions they deserve to fail. Not because they are poor but because they didn’t do what they were supposed to do.</p>
<p>I guess it’s all in one’s attitude. I am full pay for two at top schools right now and when I write those checks (or more accurately, transfer the money online) I don’t feel any “resentment.” I feel pride in myself that I worked as hard as I did and saved as hard as I did, happy that I’m able to give my kids this opportunity, blessed that we’re able to give a gift like this so freely, and if some of what I pay helps a kid who wouldn’t otherwise be able to attend … well, that’s icing on the cake. I COULD be the kind of miserable person who resents “how easy the poor have it” (ha! feel free to exchange your life for theirs if it’s so wonderful!) but why would I choose to be a miserable person?</p>
<p>Money doesn’t buy happiness, of course, and I’d rather be poor and happy than rich and miserable, but if I have the choice of being rich and happy or rich and miserable I choose rich and happy. Others on here are choosing to be rich and miserable about it.</p>
<p>Proudpatriot, I still feel you are avoiding the fundamental question, which is–do all students deserve equal access to the amenities offered at their colleges? Again, not all students take advantage of everything available to them once they enroll in an institution. Colleges don’t usually offer these services on an a la carte basis–they are there whether a student uses them or not. My son may never use the pool or the climbing wall in the rec center. Your daughter may not eat as much food as others with an unlimited meal plan. Our kids may never need to visit a career advisor, but others might. But they do not have LESS available to them because others have more. This is the flaw in your premise. </p>
<p>Once kids have been admitted to a college–regardless of where their funding is coming from–the college has an obligation to support them and help them succeed. Do you think it would benefit any institution to develop a reputation for failing students from low SES backgrounds because they aren’t willing to make an effort to understand their differing needs from more affluent kids with supportive families? Of course not. Most colleges, and the students who attend them, value having a diverse student body and high graduation rates. As others have said, if this bothers you, you can always choose a place like NYU or Hillsdale College.</p>
<p>I sit next to people on airplanes who may be flying free due to redeeming miles or buddy passes from family members who are airplane employees. I may be parking my car next to people who got their cars at a deep discount because their uncle is in the business. Why, the person ahead of me in line at Starbucks may be using a gift card and I don’t have one! Teh Horrorz! </p>
<p>I don’t sit there getting “resentful” about much in life as you seem to do. It’s not worth the effort. Life is rough enough without looking for things to get “outraged” about. Anyway, if the life of the poor is so easy, feel free to give away all your possessions and move into a cruddy apartment in an unsafe neighborhood with bad schools just so you can take advantage of the “freebie” college tuition.</p>
<p>A lot of good students WANT to go to NYU and that’s why they have a lot of applicants and the acceptance rate is less than 40%. My child (upper middle class, not rich) was full pay, but had a lot better things to do (like study) than sit around and worry about whether her tuition money was subsidizing anyone else. I had better things to do,too.</p>