<p>Thanks for bringing us up to date on Mr. Tubbz. I wondered what would become of him.</p>
<p>cut-n-paste from another thread:</p>
<p>It seems there are Antitrust considerations in play for why the Ivys don’t award merit aid-- they are avoiding a bidding war for the choicest candidates:
<a href=“http://apps.americanbar.org/antitrust/at-committees/at-exemc/pdf/tradeorcommerce.pdf[/url]”>http://apps.americanbar.org/antitrust/at-committees/at-exemc/pdf/tradeorcommerce.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If merit awards are just discounted tuition to attract students whose parents can pay nearly full sticker price, how do colleges know which students will fall into this category? Aren’t most merit awards offered BEFORE parents fill out their FAFSA Are they just fishing?</p>
<p>enrollment management. Schools can make some good guesses about a family’s finances just from where they live…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Generally, yield rates are lower for students whose stats are near the high end of the range for the college (because they have more other options of “better” colleges). If a college wants to attract such students to “upgrade” its students, then it may choose to offer merit scholarship discounts to the better students, whether or not they are needy.</p>
<p>Need-based financial aid is based on attracting students who are desirable to the school to be admitted but who may not attend college at all if it is too expensive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Median household income includes households with one adult and with retirees. I think it make sense to compare a household with two adults in their early 50s (peak earning years, and a common age for parents of college students) with other households with two middle-aged adults. For that group an income of $140K may not be such a high percentile, although it is still above average.</p>
<p>Whatever comparison group one uses, people in the 49th and 51st percentiles do not consider themselves poor and rich, but people in the 25th and 75th percentiles might.</p>
<p>I don’t see why anyone should object to a private college doling out its scholarship money in any way it chooses to – through athletic scholarships, need-based aid, merit aid not linked to need, or even not at all / full price is what it is, pay it or don’t. There’s no college you HAVE to apply to in this world. It’s like “objecting” that Bloomingdale’s doesn’t give coupons on the things I want to purchase. Well, they are under no obligation to serve me in only the ways I want to be served.</p>
<p>^^ Pizza Girl…just curious…would you be okay with extending that scenario to my business…</p>
<p>We rent to students near a major university…let’s run with the scenario. Let’s say I ( a private entity) decides to require tax forms and personal statements from all applicants. I then look at my existing tenants and decide I am missing ‘X’ type of renter. ‘X" has been deemed by the social mores to be deserving of special treatment. So, I decide to offer "X’ and “X” type applicants a reduced rent. Not only that, I choose them over and above other applicants who applied earlier and whose submitted information would lead a statistician to conclude they would be more suited. It should, according to the University structure be not only perfectly legal (after all I am a private institution and I get to distribute my funds as I see fit and I get to pick the demographic I choose to subsidize) it is actually the moral imperative. </p>
<p>And yet, I can guarantee were I to implement the above process I would be hauled into court for discrimination faster than you an say…THAT"S NOT FAIR! </p>
<p>Can we change that law???</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>As far as I know there is no law requiring landlords to charge all tenants the same rent , even for the same exact apartment. Or to require their buddies to fill out exactly the same documentation for rental applications. Also, I believe people can legally restrict rentals to seniors, or people without children. At least they do in practice around here. And of course people reject applicants with arbitrary credit score limits, or because they don’t like the recs from earlier landlords. Are those things illegal? In fact, with section 8 housing, some landlords are required to only rent to people with a certain income level. As I walk to work there is a huge building that says “We rent to low income renters only.” I think there are all sorts of situations like that, as long as you don’t violate the anti-discrimination laws pertaining to certain protected groups. Isn’t this true? I’m actually not sure.</p>
<p>Schools rent rooms to only students. Why not require them to open their dorms to the general public?</p>
<p>On housing, I see this from HUD:</p>
<p>Fair Housing Act
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and disability. [Fair</a> Housing Laws and Presidential Executive Orders - HUD](<a href=“http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws]Fair”>http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws)</p>
<p>You can’t discriminate based on “familial status,” but age (except for children) is not included in the list.</p>
<p>^^^
Okay, maybe that part about “No Children” is something I remember from the past. But I’m sure they still have senior apartment complexes around here.</p>
<p>I live in CA. If you refuse to rent to families - lawsuit. If you refuse to rent to seniors - law suite. As for section 8…as of today it is still a voluntary program. You are not required to accept section 8 applicants for the simple reason that you don’t accept section 8 applicants. (FWIW…that is one heck of a cumbersome and illogical entity to work with). If you even ASK about a disability - lawsuit. If someone states that their 120 lb unwashed, unkempt and untrained dog is ‘companion’ animal for a disability - nope, can’t ask - lawsuit. And if you get into areas like San Francisco it gets even more convoluted. If an individual has a particular illness…they are protected from evictions. And, in spite of ALL the mandatory disclosure laws it is a violation of the law to disclose an individual with a certain illness died in a residence. </p>
<p>
Well, therein lies the crux of the matter - by HAVING protect groups you have be default UNPROTECTED groups.</p>
<p>bovertine, What I take from HUD is that, since age isn’t included on the list, one can discriminate based on age. Thus you can set up senior housing and be ok, as far as anti-discrimination laws.</p>
<p>dietz199, Perhaps that’s due to state or local laws. It doesn’t look like there’s an age discrimination issue under federal law.</p>
<p>
You are getting what I asked about backwards.</p>
<p>I’m not saying you can refuse to rent to seniors. I’m saying I think you can have senior only rentals. I live in CA too, and they have those all over the place, at least that’s how they are advertized. Are you saying that’s illegal?</p>
<p>And is it illegal for a university to restrict its dorms to students only?</p>
<p>And if your friend has a slightly lower credit score than another applicant, is it illegal to rent to them?</p>
<p>As far as rent, I know my sister rents an apartment and pays less than another tenant for the exact same apartment because she’s been there longer. Is that illegal?</p>
<p>I understand there are lots of restrictons based on certain federal laws. But I believe there is some latitiude. I personally think there should be wide latitude for landlords to decide whom they rent to.</p>
<p>Sorry Bovertine, I did get it backwards. Yes, there are senior only complexes and senior only mobile home parks. </p>
<p>The credit score is exactly the point. No, it is not illegal to rent to the lower credit score. That is a choice still left up to the owner/operator. Colleges however use criteria for selecting their student body which would not be tolerated in other private sector industries. I can not pick one ethnic group over another just because at a given point in time one particular group is over represented. I can not pick one gender over another simply because the property happens to have 75% females. Imagine the end result if it was shown that I collected applications, sorted them by gender, evaluated my current distribution and then asked a manager to only take from the male stack because we needed to gender balance the complex.</p>
<p>
Oh, okay. That’s basically the AA debate, which I don’t want to get into. I thought we were talking about criteria other than those usual suspects.</p>
<p>Bovertine…Agreed. no AA debate … </p>
<p>It is off limits (not only here but outside in the real world also)…which of course means the problems it introduces are also off limits for discussion.</p>
<p>“Justice is equality, but only for equals; and justice is inequality, but only for those who are unequal.” - Aristotle (Politics)</p>
<p>The law does not require every seller to treat every buyer exactly equally in every transaction. Some differences do justify unequal treatment. For example, families with children aren’t allowed to buy property in a retirement community. Other differences don’t justify unequal treatment. For example, the law has established that skin color is not a justified basis for unequal treatment in the housing market.</p>
<p>I do think it is reasonable for a college to interpret an applicant’s “objective” achievements (such as SAT scores) in light of his or her opportunities and challenges. This flexibility can benefit not only the individual applicant but the whole college community. The same principle applies to how colleges weigh athletic or artistic talent against grades and test scores. Different colleges apply different weights in shaping the kind of class they want to admit. This is a distinctive feature of American higher education.</p>
<p>^^^ absolutely correct. So, let’s summarize:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A college education is completely different than any other resource, commodity or service currently available. therefore:</p></li>
<li><p>Colleges can buy certain students</p></li>
<li><p>Certain students can buy a seat</p></li>
<li><p>Certain SES receive preferential pricing</p></li>
<li><p>Certain talents will incur preferential pricing</p></li>
<li><p>Certain unalterable personal traits/characteristics will incur preferential pricing treatment
6 those not covered under 1-5 will not receive preferential pricing treatment</p></li>
<li><p>As a society we have decided that this structure has merit (haha) and with full awareness continue to support and implement it.</p></li>
<li><p>What would be considered grossly unfair and unjust in any other resource, commodity or service is not only justified in this case…it is GOOD.</p></li>
<li><p>We reserve the right to change who falls under the preferential pricing structure in 1- 5 based on social trends.</p></li>
<li><p>Deal with it.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
Well, I don’t know about off limits. There are probably tens of thousandss of posts on this website about it. It’s probably the main reason this particular thread was started.</p>
<p>Tiringly repetitious with virtually nobody changing their mind? That I’ll go along with.</p>