<p>You really need to read the article. It doesn’t say that full pay students are subsidizing financial aid students. It isn’t even saying that full pay students are subsidizing research. </p>
<p>Here’s what is says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If professors at Dartmouth teach more, then the cost to educate will go from 64K to 51K. Now 51K is very similar to full pay COA. So full pay is NOT subsidizing financial aid.</p>
<p>The next thing they do is ‘assume there is overspending’. Big assumption. They then try to show that among private 4 year institutions, they all should spend around the median amount. Here is where the problem lies. They figure if School X can get away with spending so many dollars, then school Y should also be spending that much.</p>
<p>It could just mean that the more expensive school provides more services to its students, services that students may need. The less expensive schools may not be funding these services, but that could impact on their education, etc. </p>
<p>But there is nothing here to suggest that at high COA schools, the full pays subsidize the others.</p>
<p>Another thing. Given that they try to measure cost by median spending for institutions of that type (and the types are rather course–private 4 year vs public 4 year, etc.), they essentially state that since School X can do it with less, then School Y should be able to do it for the same amount.</p>
<p>Now imagine if financial aid is calculated this way. Given the median spending of a family of 4, then every family of 4 should spend like that. Thus, if you make so many dollars over the median amount, that’s the amount you should have towards higher education. Not a lot of people would agree with this kind of analysis.</p>
<p>Notice that they don’t really provide a true cost–they are only ‘estimating’ how it costs.</p>
<p>But WHY should they do it with less? From a market perspective, they are clearly very, very underpriced, and will be until they can cut the number of qualified applicants to meet the availability of places. Figure $80kish, in current dollars. And then, if they choose, they can subsidize whomever they want to. </p>
<p>Prestige private colleges are the cheapest they’ve been in 30 years (to the top 10-20% of the population they mostly serve).</p>
<p>But WHY should they do it with less? From a market perspective, they are clearly very, very underpriced, and will be until they can cut the number of qualified applicants to meet the availability of places. Figure $80kish, in current dollars. And then, if they choose, they can subsidize whomever they want to. </p>
<p>Prestige private colleges are the cheapest they’ve been in 30 years (to the top 10-20% of the population they mostly serve). </p>
<p>======================================</p>
<p>hmm, mini not certain. They may be cheap to the top 1%, but not to the top 20%. The top 20% are looking to state Us more and more, imho.</p>
<p>Nope. In 1980, the top 20% virtually all had gone to state universities - they didn’t even apply to prestige privates. But now it is a “need” for their sons and daughters. </p>
<p>The GAO does data on the ASSETS of people in various quintiles (not income, mind you, but assets.) Relative to where they once were, the top 10-20% are very, very, very, very rich.</p>