<p>UPenn a state school? It doesn't matter neway if only 42% are on financial aid bc financial aid is a stupid idea- y should people get free money for doing absolutely nothing special??</p>
<p>I don't know about you, but every now and then I get tired of dealing with all the elitist rich pricks around here. socio-economic diversity is definitely something to appreciate. If you disagree, then go to princeton.</p>
<p>in no way did i say that colleges should eliminate socio-economic diversity... i just think that colleges are reverting too much of their resources to their financial aid systems... in order to help students, the us government could set up a system in which students can borrow whatever $$ they need with very low interest rates in order to fund their education... i think it's wrong in a capitalist society that people should be given free money for doing absolutely nothing special, and sorry if I've been provocative, but honestly, many people would agree with me</p>
<p>Colleges really do hate some high schools. For instance, at my high school, we regularly get students into MIT and usually get one or two at Harvard each year as well as a few more at Ivy League schools, but not one student has been accepted into Brown or Yale in at least six years.</p>
<p>n88x, if you'd like, think of the financial aid as an attempt to create a competitive advantage for attracting students of lower financial status in order to advertise the school. Not that these schools couldn't decide to throw out need-blind admissions and just accept all the rich kids who can pay their way without aid through four years, and there is a touch of humanitarianism in the financial aid process, but financial aid is fundamentally driven by the need for colleges to be able to look good and drive up the number of qualified applicants/matriculants.</p>
<p>n88x:</p>
<p>Those who have wealthy parent's aren't doing anything special to be able to afford to attend expensive schools, they just got lucky by birth. What's fair is providing a means for those less fortunate to attend the same institutions, especially when studies show (there was one recently done at harvard i believe) that those with need actually perform BETTER at elite insitutions than their peers who pay the full sticker price. The notion of providing only loans is ludicrous beyond words, no one with any measure of need would attend upper-tier (and thus highly priced) private schools, because coming out of school over 100 grand in debt is terrible for anyone, no matter what the interest rate. Financial aid is the sole means of providing any measure of socioeconomic diversity at Penn or any other Ivy, and the current system does a poor job of that as it is, when almost 60% of students come from families who can foot a tuition bill about the size of the country's median income. Furthermore, since the Federal government isn't handing out this 'free money,' the individual private insitutions are, I hardly see how grants go against any abstract capitalist ideal, even a distorted one.</p>
<p>"sorry if I've been provocative, but honestly, many people would agree with me"</p>
<p>umm....i don't. we should take a poll.</p>
<p>here's the DP editorial where i head about the Harvard study I mentioned, it discusses the relationship between income, SAT scores, and ensuing performance in college</p>
<p>As cliche as it sounds, I think different schools go for different types of people. The students in your school may just have personalities and/or qualifications which fit the "Holy Trinity", though they evidently may not be Ben Franklin's cup of tea.</p>
<p>" just think that colleges are reverting too much of their resources to their financial aid systems... in order to help students, the us government could set up a system in which students can borrow whatever $$ they need with very low interest rates in order to fund their education... i think it's wrong in a capitalist society that people should be given free money for doing absolutely nothing special, and sorry if I've been provocative, but honestly, many people would agree with me"</p>
<p>I don't agree with you. The amount of aid the university gives out is puny compared to its endowment. With over four billion dollars, Penn can afford to give every student there a free ride, and still have an endowment bigger than that of many other elite schools.</p>
<p>Not only that, but the university would be incredibly stupid to pass up on poor students, just because they're poor. It makes more sense to pass up poor students if they're stupid too. More than a few disadvantaged students will end up donating large sums of money to Penn or making names for themselves in academia (and thus boosting Penn's rep). So it's really good for everyone in the long run.</p>
<p>And you talk about a "capitalist" society, and then say its wrong for students who have WORKED HARD to not get their due simply because they had the bad luck of being born into a disadvantaged or less wealthy family. To the contrary, that's the great thing about capitalism--anyone who is smart enough and works hard enough can have a chance to be educated and rich. You're describing an aristocracy, not a capitalist meritocracy.</p>
<p>And all this is coming from a future student who will not be on aid and didn't apply for it.</p>
<p>jpps1</p>
<p>As I've already mentioned, my point of view is the same as yours as far as disadvantaged students go.</p>
<p>But don't be too hard on n88x. Financial aid is a great thing. Most people see it that way, and that's what matters. </p>
<p>The way I see it, the high tuition that my family pays helps other students who otherwise wouldn't have the ability to attend Penn. That's great. No one should be restricted from attending an exceptional university, but when you talk about using the endowment to pay for poor kids... you're fooling yourself missy. </p>
<p>Our endowment/student ratio is tiny compared with other schools of similar academic standing. You may not know this, but Penn is embarking on a campaign in the next few years to double the endowment because it is so small. How do you want this incredible research institution to pay for new facilities and have the sercuity of knowing there is an endowment to pay for difficult times if our endowment remains so low? God knows we need a better engieneering program. Harvard only has upwards of 25 billion dollars at their disposal. We only have 4 billion. When you consider that we have plenty more students than Harvard, that discrepancy leaves a bitter taste.</p>
<p>I'm aware that Penn's endowment is relatively low compared to HYP. But look at non-Ivies ranked between #10 and #25 in the USNews. A place like Georgetown has a comparatively paltry endowment of $650 million. Like I said, even if Penn gave every undergrad student a full ride, it'd still have over $2bn in endowed funds. </p>
<p>But yes, if Penn wants to get into the same sphere as HYPSM (let's face it: Penn just doesn't have that same mass appeal and rep), it needs even more money. After all, money is what caused its ranking to drop in the first place (their budget crisis in the 70s-80s).</p>