<p>I don’t see a significant public interest in diversity at private schools. </p>
<p>The public interest in allowing public funds to be used to attend private schools is that it saves the subsidy funding those students would utilize at a public school. There is a tipping point at which the aid provided would exceed the subsidy savings. Current maximum Pell is probably below that point, and I certainly wouldn’t favor raising it above that point.</p>
<p>Silly question: why not do a top-to-bottom review of Vassar’s spending, overhead, administrative structure, pay, and capital construction projects, and then decide if there is any way to free up some money for low-income students?</p>
<p>Back in the dark ages, colleges used to educate students for a lot less than they do now. You cannot tell me that administrative bloat is some law of nature that cannot be undone by a determined President who would rather enroll low-income students than act as a hiring charity for middle-aged, middle-class adults.</p>
<p>“Well, if you believe in expanding the economy via upward mobility, funding college for students from poor families is one of the very best ways to do it.”</p>
<p>Caveat: talented, hard-working students from poor families.</p>
<p>If a rich parent wants to send his wastrel son to private college, well, whatever - people can use their money however they want. It’s not fair to say that not entirely motivated, not entirely intelligent poor kids can’t go to college when their rich counterparts do, but the alternative is absurd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its neither here no there; wise or unwise. If the public purpose is to educate our citizenry, then we have a fiduciary responsibility to do it efficiently – which includes costs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are there any academic studies which demonstrate that the full-pay students benefit from hanging around the poorer students? If that is a benefit, and the full pay families truly believe that a benefit exists, why not then just attend a public school? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it goes farther at public schools, and public schools are in dire straits. Heck, a Pell can covers 100% of some state jucos. Moreover, HYP et al have more money than Congress. If HYP et al, believe as oldmom does, HYP et al can easily offer a full ride to the poor out of their coffee budgets. Why do the taxpayers in Arkansas have to chip in to send kids on a four-year sojourn to Cambridge?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if the student’s local public university is too selective for the student, or does not offer the major that s/he intends to study? Or if the student lives in a more remote part of the state not within reasonable commuting range of a public university?</p>
<p>The CSUs operate basically as you want (their need-based aid does not change based on commuter versus residential status, so a California resident student getting maximum financial aid sees a net price of ~$4,000 as a commuter, but ~$11,000 residential). But not everyone in California lives near a CSU that has the desired major that they can get admitted to, although a more distant CSU may have the desired major that they can get admitted to.</p>
<p>It’s absolutely preposterous for private colleges to act as if taxpayers should fund a quarter million+ education </p>
<p>The audacity of these places surpasses understanding. </p>
<p>Talk to your alums or discount your tuition. </p>
<p>We have to focus, already, on making state options affordable to the poor. </p>
<p>There’s no money for this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, what you call “diversity,” in the context of college admissions, means quotas and preferential evaluation for selected groups of people (and not for other groups of people) based on superficial non-relevant criteria in an attempt to rectify prior wrongs.</p>
<p>It’s, in fact, not “good for everyone.”</p>
<p>
Right. Taxpayers shouldn’t fund this sort of thing.</p>
<p>
Yes! Just as in K-12, there can be an awful lot of “bloat” in the administrative levels.</p>
<p>Lose-lose if public colleges become the ghetto for students from poor families.</p>
<p>I doubt that’s going to happen. There are just too many “good publics” out there that many middle, upper-middle, and upper class kids want to attend.</p>
<p>The gov’t has no real interest (and tax-payers don’t either) in making sure that private schools are “economically diverse.”</p>
<p>If that were so, then the gov’t would have an interest in making sure that K-12 private education is “economically diverse.”</p>
<p>*Hold on a sec, oldmom, I’m confused. I thought you wanted all students from poor families to be able to go to college. But they shouldn’t have to go to public colleges? Or are public colleges okay so long as at least some of the students drive sports cars and wear designer clothes?</p>
<p>I apologize - I’m clearly not current on the latest trends in social engineering . . .
*</p>
<p>lol…too funny.</p>
<p>yes, the truth comes out. The real agenda is to make sure that all poor students have access to EVERY possible thing that richer students have…even if the lower cost schools are more than adequate and can help them lift themselves out of poverty (which was the initial claim). Next we’ll be seeing requests that they be funded for upscale clothing, etc, so that their wardrobes are up to par.</p>
<p>*Originally Posted by mom2collegekids</p>
<h1>It really isn’t the gov’ts job to be providing aid for Room and Board. It is reasonable that there should be enough aid (grants and loans) given to cover basic costs to commute to the local public.</h1>
<p>What if the student’s local public university is too selective for the student, or does not offer the major that s/he intends to study? Or if the student lives in a more remote part of the state not within reasonable commuting range of a public university?*</p>
<p>Those are the exceptions and not the rule. There can be guidelines in place for those unique situations. </p>
<p>If a poor student has applied to the top local school and was denied, he could be funded for the local CC and then transfer. IF still denied, then funding for the last two years of R&B elsewhere.</p>
<p>If an unusual major is desired, then attend the local CC for two years, AND THEN IF STILL on track for that major (unlikely since kids change their majors so much!) then R&B funded for the last two years only. It would be silly to fully fund an incoming frosh for some unique major because there’s a 50/50 chance he’ll change his major within those first two years…what a waste.</p>
<p>But…currently, the thought process is to fully fund the student’s R&B no matter what’s available to him in his own backyard. That is crazy.</p>
<p>BTW…the CSU’s need to revert back to what they were originally designed for…commuters. I know that they give some local preference, but that preference needs to be greater so that modest income students (including middle income) can commute to college and basically just have tuition, fees, books, and travel costs…and save $15k per year on R&B…that many folks can’t afford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As one of our former President once said: ‘life is unfair’.</p>
<p>IMO, it should not be in the public’s interest/responsibilitk to educate 100% of all students in any major of their choosing (particularly since major choices tend to changes 2-3 times over the course of a collegiate career.)</p>
<p>Many of us parents grew up poor and had to work our way though the public college of our choice…</p>
<p>Nice post bluebayou (#24).</p>
<p>Yes, not to mention how ridiculously inflated the room and board expenses are, compared to living off of any campus. </p>
<p>I’m over the overly inflated costs of the privates, and even many of the publics, for that matter. </p>
<p>I believe in diversity, but not at this luxury cost.</p>
<p>I should have added to my post #31…that a desired unique major should also be scrutinized in regards to career goal before R&B gov’t aid is given for the last two years. Some schools may not have X major, but they have Y major which is fine for the intended career goal. We see this with those who want to major in PetE or BioMedE or what-have-you. Often, another major (ChemE or MechE, etc) can still get a student to the career that s/he desires.</p>
<p>When I graduated HS in the 70s as a strong student from a blue collar first generation family, a 4 year residential private college was simply out of the question. I didn’t even apply to any of those. I went to a commuter school on a partial scholarship and worked year round (part time during the school year, full time during the summer). I got a great college education and turned that into a great grad school degree and good career. I had siblings that did 2 years of community college at home and then went away to 2 years at a state school. That’s just fine.</p>
<p>Today, I probably would have been able to get close to a full ride at an Ivy or other fancy private school on financial aid. And my HS guidance counsellors would have encouraged me to apply to those kind of schools (which they didn’t back then). For many of these type kids, today is better than the good old days in terms of access to residential privates.</p>
<p>The idea that every kid has a right to four years of residential college is ridiculous. Also ridiculous that the price tag for those four years is now $250k. How about Vassar changes its ossified operating model and cuts its price in half instead?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As noted above, the CSUs do not increase financial aid for residential students over commuter students. Their financial aid policy certainly gives incentive to choose one that is in reasonable commuting distance, if available.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also, the difference in cost between commuter and residential students is not $15,000. Room and board is not necessarily that expensive, and living with parents is not cost-free (student still consumes food and utilities, and incurs commuting costs). The CSUs appear to assume the residential living costs about $7,000 more than commuting from the parents’ home, although there is likely considerable individual variation in how much living at the parents’ home and commuting actually costs.</p>
<p>Also, the difference in cost between commuter and residential students is not $15,000. Room and board is not necessarily that expensive, and living with parents is not cost-free (student still consumes food and utilities, and incurs commuting costs</p>
<p>Yes, but parents are often picking up most/all of those costs when commuting. The same parents that will let their child live at home for “free” often still won’t contribute towards R&B costs. That estimate for those living at home can be very excessive.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the thoughts on why schools embrace diversity today by Golfdad and others is wholly incorrect. After sitting through numerous information sessions at top LACs in the Northeast with my biracial daughter over the past year, I can tell you they are all on the same page and this is the gist - diversity in the educational environment is crucial to learning. From Yale to Tufts, at U Penn, Bowdoin and yes, Vassar the message was the same. It is imperative to higher level thinking to be surrounded by people who look different than you, grew up differently than you and have a multitude of personal experiences. At Yale the admissions counselor explicitly said “to fill a class with 20 people exactly like you would be a disservice.”</p>
<p>I am for diversity. I agree it enhances education. I think if private schools want diversity and want to charge 60K a year, that’s their problem. Not mine. Not any taxpayer</p>
<p>They are already tax exempt. They already get the same # of tax dollars as the publics for Pell eligible students. The rest is up to them.</p>
<p>My problem is with the cost of privates, not the concept of diversity.</p>
<p>It is imperative to higher level thinking to be surrounded by people who look different than you, grew up differently than you and have a multitude of personal experiences. At Yale the admissions counselor explicitly said "to fill a class with 20 people exactly like you would be a disservice.</p>
<p>Fine…so let them (those schools) pay for that. It’s not the tax-payers’ job to help pricey privates diversify.</p>
<p>I don’t think you can expect a $70k family to subsidize a pricey private (that their own kid can’t attend) just so that school can diversify.</p>