Harvard University is upping its financial aid for working and middle class students*. They are, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, "responding to criticism that elite colleges have become unaffordable for ordinary Americans."
Here are the bones of the plan:
The Ivy League school said undergraduates whose families earn up to $180,000 would be asked to pay 10% or less of their incomes annually for the cost of Harvard, which this year totals $45,456. The university said the initiative would reduce the cost of attending the college by one-third to one-half, making the price comparable to in-state tuition and fees at top public universities.For example, the university said a family making $120,000 will be asked to pay about $12,000 for a child to attend Harvard College, compared with more than $19,000 under current student-aid policies. A family making $180,000 would pay $18,000, down from $30,000.
At lower income levels, families would pay a smaller percentage of income, declining to zero at $60,000 a year. Harvard said it would eliminate loans from all financial-aid packages and no longer consider home equity in calculating eligibility. (Read the text of the Harvard statement.)
"We want all students who might dream of a Harvard education to know that it is a realistic and affordable option," said Harvard President Drew Faust.
I find this fascinating for several reasons. First, it implies that the children whose parents only make $175,000 a year in joint income are among Harvard's underprivileged. And second, this seems grossly unlikely to make any actual difference in Harvard's enrollment, or indeed its costs. The actual discrimination comes from the fact that it is very hard to attend Harvard unless your parents have a great deal of money and social capital to pour into the task of turning you into "Harvard material".
When I was at Penn, a friend who actually qualified as a proletarian, and whose proletarian consciousness would have been rated "Exceeds expectations" by the Comintern Membership Committee, indignantly informed me that almost half our class was the product of private schools.
"So?" I asked innocently.
"So those schools are less than 2% of the total American school system," he said. As far as I can tell, that disparity has only grown in the intervening years; thanks to unfavorable demographics, getting into college now is much more competitive than it was in my day. As long as you're drawing half your student body from schools that charge tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition, playing with your financial aid package is the poverty-fighting equivalent of sending a complementary fruit basket to the local orphanage at Christmas.
* Actual middle class students, not the children of corporate lawyers living in Manhattan who consider that an income of $500,000 a year puts them smack in the middle of the proletariat.
So, you're saying that Harvard should not send fruit baskets to orphans?
I think it's nice that Harvard is making an attempt to socio-economically diversify its student bsae. The other issues you identify, while valid, don't seem to be Harvard's responsibility to address.
It would be nice if they showed their actual analysis, assuming they did some, of how there is a group of people who are not currently applying to Harvard or are rejecting an offer because of the cost but would be admitted or accept if they now apply under the discount.
It sounds like a good idea, although it is appears to be a moderate loosening of student aid guidelines and not a major philosophical change. I have been wondering how a not for profit institution could go on making billions of dollars a year in investment income from its endowment and still raise tuition, and, at the same time, wondering how the leftwing academics at that school could reconcile their stated views with privately benefiting from such a state of affairs. FWIW, I a long time ago attended Harvard on a combination of scholarships and loans, because my parents were working class. So I am grateful to that school and have made large donations to show that (no, cynical leftists, I do not expect any of my children to apply there).
I would call it an interesting and uplifting piece of news if it concerned Harvard's close neighbor. As it is... pfft!
The above, properly rephrased:
$ ^Harvard^MIT^
$
Minor point: I followed the links back to the Harvard Gazette announcement, and as far as I can tell, the policy cuts off abruptly at $180K. This seems to be pretty naive from the moral hazard point of view, in the sense that a family with a true AGI of $180,001 has a marginal Harvard tax of about $25K on the extra $1 of income. You would think the econ faculty could come up with a better plan.
Megan,
I think you're mistaken about the effect of this change. I'm the parent of a high school junior. I have heard many middle class parents say that their children will not be applying to the elite private colleges because the family can't afford it. Even with aid, twenty thousand bucks a year for four years is not chump change.
The best of these kids end up at the top publics like Berkeley, UCLA and University of Virgina. Harvard wants to attract some of those kids.
And c'mon, they're Harvard. If they want to siphon off 300 middle class kids from Berkeley and UVa, they'll succeed.
My guess is this plan will have the most effect on kids from high cost of living places like San Francisco and northern New Jersey. As it is now, high housing values in those areas mean that families are expected to contribute a lot of money to their kids' educations, but it's harsh to expect a family to borrow against the house to pay for college.
Alternatively it'll just mean more money for the same people already getting in, money which according to the New York Times they'll have to allocate to squash lessons, since that's the new edge, sez the Times, for getting into Harvard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/fashion/09squash.html
I have been wondering how a not for profit institution could go on making billions of dollars a year in investment income from its endowment and still raise tuition,
This has been asked by Congress, also. University endowments are exempt from the 5% rule of other non-profits. Other non-profit foundations are required to spend at least 5% of their endowment each year on the purpose of the foundation. It was noted, by Instapundit IIRC, that if Harvard was to spend that much, they could eliminate tuition entirely. This is what they seem to be doing for many students with the new policy.
You would think the econ faculty could come up with a better plan.
Harvard and the other Ivy League schools (plus MIT) used to have a coordinated financial aid policy, where they made aid offers such that a student's net cost after aid was the same at all of the schools they were admitted to. This was held to be an illegal cartel by the courts and was stopped, so they have a history of bad econ practices.
"I think you're mistaken about the effect of this change. I'm the parent of a high school junior. I have heard many middle class parents say that their children will not be applying to the elite private colleges because the family can't afford it."
Yep. For my daughter, Harvard wasn't in the picture, but other privates were -- not as elite as Harvard but in the same price range. We/she ruled them out simply because they offered no financial (and only minimal academic discounts/scholarship). Although we *could* have afforded full tuition, we weren't willing to drain our savings or saddle her with huge student loans -- the value proposition over the state university just wasn't there.
"Harvard said it would eliminate loans from all financial-aid packages and no longer consider home equity in calculating eligibility."
That's interesting--I guess the thing to do then would be to take all your cash savings and pay down your mortgage (with a home-equity line of credit if you need the money later).
My reaction was the same as several others': moral hazard. But it is a step in the right direction, and there's no way to do any means-testing without causing some perverse incentives. Parents will have an incentive to hide assets, defer income until after the student graduates, load up on debt, etc.
Fifteen years ago, my parents paid full-price to send me to an ivy. A friend who lived better than I did got a huge amount of financial aid. They apparently lived beyond their means; my parents were savers. I was particularly annoyed when my friend told me her financial aid package increased when her dad traded in the Olds for a new Caddy. Bigger car payment = more financial aid.
Harvard institutes changes to make it easier for public school children to attend. McArdle claims these changes are pointless because Harvard draws its students disproportionately from private schools. Huh??
MIT makes its admissions "need-blind." Then after that there's another round for financial aid. MIT tries to make it that for a good student, there will never be a financial reason to not go. (One reason why they keep pestering us alums for donations, of course.) A relatively small amount of $$ will be required of everyone--which can be provided by the student working on a UROP or similar.
James B. Shearer said Megan said:
Harvard institutes changes to make it easier for public school children to attend. McArdle claims these changes are pointless because Harvard draws its students disproportionately from private schools. Huh??
What Megan actually said:
And second, this seems grossly unlikely to make any actual difference in Harvard's enrollment, or indeed its costs.
and...
As long as you're drawing half your student body from schools that charge tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition, playing with your financial aid package is the poverty-fighting equivalent of sending a complementary fruit basket to the local orphanage at Christmas.
Hm, well, saying it's going to make zero difference on anything is probably factually incorrect, although of course we don't know yet. On the other hand, its practical effect is likely to be to extend the Harvard student base a little more deeply into the middle class. I imagine that Megan's mention of the percentage of Harvard students that currently come from private schools was intended as an illustration of how shallow that penetration currently is.
Are you saying that the new policies are going to mean more people who come from actually poor families are going to go to Harvard? That seems doubtful to me.
What Megan actually said:
And second, this seems grossly unlikely to make any actual difference in Harvard's enrollment, or indeed its costs.
What's going over my head is why this plan would be "grossly unlikely to make any actual difference in Harvard's... costs." Doesn't the plan automatically reduce costs for families with a combined income of less than $180,000/year? Is the issue that few families earning less than $180,000/year are going to have the financial/social wherewithal to raise kids with a shot at getting into Harvard? These aren't rhetorical questions; I genuinely feel like I'm missing something simple here.
Only suckers pay retail.
When I applied to colleges 14 years ago, I recall Brown's literature touting the fact that ~50% of the collected tuition was recycled as financial aid. I don't recall the details but the aid package they offered was apparently generous enough for my very modest parents to cover the difference.
Still, Brown couldn't compete with Free at Mega State U, so that was that.
(Hmmm... After a year to Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe I should apply. I'll have savings, but will be well below the 180,000 cap, especially if I take another year between at regular salary. Shoot, I might be able to find Government money to cover the cost too. Verbal score is low, but Analytical and Quant are tops)
This seems like a way to keep the high tuition rather than expanding the university, which I think is logical. There are lots of smart people in the world (though much less than dumb people) and people are getting smarter; there are plenty enough to keep the current economy running and growing. But as more of the world develops, less and less intelligent people will be needed (relatively). Prestige seems to be more valuable for them (Harvard) than turnover already.
"... On the other hand, its practical effect is likely to be to extend the Harvard student base a little more deeply into the middle class. I imagine that Megan's mention of the percentage of Harvard students that currently come from private schools was intended as an illustration of how shallow that penetration currently is."
McArdles's mention makes no sense. Harvard thinks more middle class students would attend if Harvard was made cheaper for them. McArdle "refutes" this by pointing out that relatively few middle class students currently attend Harvard. McArdle's critique would make sense if it was based on data that the pool of students meeting Harvard's standard for admission skews just as rich as the pool of students actually attending Harvard but she offers no such evidence.
JB,
Yes, as people become more equally capable, selection will become either more social and political or arbitrary (a little of each, but one will dominate).
Unlike reality, it doubt it will be the arbitrary. This might lead in that direction though, maybe even better than expansion. A little randomness is good.
"Brown's literature touting the fact that ~50% of the collected tuition was recycled as financial aid"
I'm pretty sure this is wrong for Brown and the other high-ticket private colleges. Even sticker price tuition doesn't cover the costs for a student at an expensive private. The college covers the remainder of the costs from the endowment, which is supported by alumni donations.
Having a high sticker price, but reducing it for families that are not zillionaires, makes perfect sense. Any business will price discriminate if it can.
My father was a professor at Wesleyan, I'm in a funded grad program now, Wesleyan paid for my college education, etc., so I don't want to sound ungrateful. But the idea that the US university system is totally or even largely a meritocracy is just completely wrong. I always laugh when people complaining about affirmative action say that it damages the meritocratic element of college; the meritocratic element of college barely exists.
I do have to say that I find it a little weird that Megan doesn't see the advantage to this. There are kids who go to Harvard who's parents don't make that much money, small though the percentage may be, and it's nice for them to pay less. The real question is why any Harvard student pays tuition at all. Harvard has an enormous endowment; a tiny fraction of their income is from tuition anyway; and it isn't like they are going to have a problem with increased demand, seeing as they control the number of admissions anyway. I would certainly think the endowment would be better spent on that than on yet another physical expansion or worse, growing it for its own sake. You've got $20 billion. Drop tuition.
Harvard and the handful of neo-Harvards take precisely as many non-wealthy students as necessary to put forth whatever public face they want to put forth in an admissions cycle. The remaining spots, certainly the majority and probably the overwhelming majority, are taken by students who families have fund-raising potential or social capital. That's Harvard's prerogative, and the only way to fight back is to reject the hegemonic value of going to Harvard. This is tricky, because the more people who reject it (by not applying), the more that others will perceive an increased opportunity to get in.
Cardinal Fang has the correct take. I imagine Harvard has missed a few top flight kids to Cal et al. because of a few bucks. And Harvard can obviously afford it.
I am a father with one in school and two more soon. IMO Harvard is one of the few institutions that would justify incurring significant debt on name alone.
As far as I can tell the standard bite per year is about 20k per year per kid, no matter the private school. And the relative income of the parents seems to not matter a great deal for middle to working upper class. My kid was offered the same deals as kids whose parents make about 5 times what I do. With two more about to enroll it insane for my kids (or me) to incur a quarter million in debt.
It's nice for Harvard to do this, but even at full price could be easily cost justified in life time earnings. But the bite is pretty much the same everywhere for private schools. And many, if not most, out of state public schools are perhaps even worse. A Texas resident going to the University of Colorado will face a bill of over 30k.
Our local example, the University of Texas, has raised tuition significantly in the last few years. By the time my kids are out of school it will be at least 20k per year for in state residents and squat for aid. Plus UT and A&M have a top 10% requirement for admission. So even the large public sector schools are increasingly unattainable for the middle class.
I find the talk of public vs. private schools somewhat interesting. Back in the late '60s my (not Harvard) experience was that private school educated kids were the weakest students in the place. The best students by far were the NYC public school kids.
Megan may be right that it would be worth taking a look at how many Harvard kids went to private schools and working towards a commitment to take more public-school kids. But this announcement is still good on its own merits. Harvard has had need-blind admissions for a long time, and a general commitment that no one should have to go elsewhere for financial reasons; but the conversion of loans to grants is a big deal.
A secondary problem is that few other schools could match this kind of move, because they lack Harvard's gajinormous endowment. Harvard could make tuition free without severe damage to its finances.
CLARK
There's no problem. I was just hoping
you could give me some insight into
the evolution of the market economy
in the early colonies. My contention
is that prior to the Revolutionary
War the economic modalities especially
of the southern colonies could most
aptly be characterized as agrarian
precapitalist and...
Will, who at this point has migrated to Chuckie's side and
is completely fed-up, includes himself in the conversation.
WILL
Of course that's your contention.
You're a first year grad student.
You just finished some Marxian
historian, Pete Garrison prob'ly,
and so naturally that's what you
believe until next month when you
get to James Lemon and get convinced
that Virginia and Pennsylvania were
strongly entrepreneurial and
capitalist back in 1740. That'll
last until sometime in your second
year, then you'll be in here
regurgitating Gordon Wood about the
Pre-revolutionary utopia and the
capital-forming effects of military
mobilization.
CLARK
(taken aback)
Well, as a matter of fact, I won't,
because Wood drastically
underestimates the impact of--
WILL
"Wood drastically underestimates the
impact of social distinctions
predicated upon wealth, especially
inherited wealth..." You got that
from "Work in Essex County," Page
421, right? Do you have any thoughts
of your own on the subject or were
you just gonna plagiarize the whole
book for me?
Clark is stunned.
WILL
Look, don't try to pass yourself off
as some kind of an intellect at the
expense of my friend just to impress
these girls.
Clark is lost now, searching for a graceful exit, any exit.
WILL
The sad thing is, in about 50 years
you might start doin' some thinkin'
on your own and by then you'll realize
there are only two certainties in
life.
CLARK
Yeah? What're those?
WILL
One, don't do that. Two -- you
dropped a hundred and fifty grand on
an education you coulda' picked up
for a dollar fifty in late charges
at the Public Library.
Ve Ri Tas
The Ivies are competing for the best students-- Princeton replaced student loans with grants back in 2001.
And brooksfoe is right-- endowments seem to have reached a critical mass where the income they throw off can easily fund this kind of generosity.
As for it being very hard to attend Harvard unless your parents invest to make you "Harvard material" -- I'm probably biased, but I'm not sure that's true. There's more than one way to get into Harvard; I can think of at least four:
1. Be near the very top of your class at one of the prestigious prep schools.
2. Have a parent who went there.
3. Be a very good athlete who is also very smart.
4. Be incredibly smart and come from some out-of-the-way place.
Of course, the difference could be that it makes them less eligible for other financial aid.
...damn I'm skeptical.
That was one my reasons for being skeptical of affirmative action. At Michigan, it seemed like it replaced poor white kids with rich black kids. Not so sure now, the state is a lot bigger than the U.
Number of Atlantic/com Voices: 7
Number who went to Harvard: 5
There might not be such a push to go to Harvard if organizations, like The Atlantic Monthly, were more open to hiring people who didn't go to Harvard.
"When I was at Penn, a friend who actually qualified as a proletarian, and whose proletarian consciousness would have been rated 'Exceeds expectations' by the Comintern Membership Committee, indignantly informed me that almost half our class was the product of private schools."
Ah, yes, the wicked joys of being an undergrad at Penn who grew up in the actual working class! Bottomless potential for dropping conversation killers.
I think that was Megan was trying to say was that "Harvard becomes more affordable" and "Harvard becomes a super-effective engine of social mobility" are not necessarily the same thing.
Gavin, you're obviously right that being unusually smart can make up for having well-connected parents, but I don't think it does as often as one might assume.
I grew up in a school district that had a significant contingent of high-income parents with advanced degrees. Because their expectations for their kids set the pace for honors and AP courses, I learned how to play the five-paragraph-essay game, studied PSAT/SAT vocabulary starting in junior high school, took the hardest possible math courses, and in general adopted the smart-kid posture of pretending to blow off schoolwork while actually making sure I did exactly what the teachers wanted. My parents certainly helped--they read to me a lot when I was little and made sure to get to know my teachers personally. But a lot of the way I looked at school came from the ambient assumption that all of us smart kids were, at the very least, going to end up shooting for special programs at Penn State. I certainly had some hard classes at Penn, but I knew what the game was as well as my classmates from Andover.
A lot of smart students from crappy schools or out-of-the-way areas don't get the same burnishing. Their classes are undemanding. The people around them are aiming for the local community college or state university two-year campus. Their parents think of Harvard as a place that produces commentators you see on cable news. Many students in such circumstances are academically gifted, but either they don't apply to elite schools because they're off the radar or, often, if they do get in and go, they have trouble with the work. They haven't learned how to manage their time or how to do triage (as in, glibly BS-ing their way through a paper for freshman English so they have more time to focus on getting econ. down for the exam).
"The real question is why any Harvard student pays tuition at all. Harvard has an enormous endowment"
"Harvard could make tuition free without severe damage to its finances."
If Harvard went tuition-free, it would become less prestigious; if it were less prestigious, fewer wealthy parents would aspire to send their kids there; if fewer wealthy parents so aspired, fewer wealthy parents would donate to Harvard; if fewer donated, the endowment wouldn't have grown to be so large.
WILL
Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody
puts a code on my desk, something
nobody else can break. So I take a
shot at it and maybe I break it. And
I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I
did my job well. But maybe that
code was the location of some rebel
army in North Africa or the Middle
East. Once they have that location,
they bomb the village where the rebels
were hiding and fifteen hundred people
I never had a problem with get killed.
(rapid fire) Now the politicians are
sayin' "send in the Marines to secure
the area" 'cause they don't give a
shit. It won't be their kid over
there, gettin' shot. Just like it
wasn't them when their number got
called, 'cause they were pullin' a
tour in the National Guard. It'll be
some guy from Southie takin' shrapnel
in the ass. And he comes home to
find that the plant he used to work
at got exported to the country he
just got back from. And the guy who
put the shrapnel in his ass got his
old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen
cents a day and no bathroom breaks.
Meanwhile my buddy from Southie
realizes the only reason he was over
there was so we could install a
government that would sell us oil at
a good price. And of course the oil
companies used the skirmish to scare
up oil prices so they could turn a
quick buck. A cute, little ancillary
benefit for them but it ain't helping
my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And
naturally they're takin' their sweet
time bringin' the oil back and maybe
even took the liberty of hiring an
alcoholic skipper who likes to drink
seven and sevens and play slalom
with the icebergs and it ain't too
long 'til he hits one, spills the
oil, and kills all the sea-life in
the North Atlantic. So my buddy's
out of work and he can't afford to
drive so he's got to walk to the job
interviews which sucks 'cause the
shrapnel in his ass is givin' him
chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile
he's starvin' 'cause every time he
tries to get a bite to eat the only
blue-plate special they're servin'
is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker
State.
3. Be a very good athlete who is also very smart. 4. Be incredibly smart and come from some out-of-the-way place. - Gavin
Harvard claims it doesn't award athletic scholarships. Perhaps the idea of need-blind admissions and universal financial aid makes them redundant though.
On point 4, though, I've always suspected this might be the case. There were certainly some out of the way folks, one girl from Nova Scotia who was quite convinced in freshman biology that a cat in her village had mated with a rabbit and produced offspring, another girl from Liberia, and so forth. And some kind of whole Saskatchewan mafia. Is this an explicit policy, do you know? And do any parents exploit it by moving to Billings before the kids go to high school?
The current system in Ivy League schools means that only the rich and the poor can afford to go. Financial aid for the middle class will create economic diversity in the student body, and with Harvard's massive endowment, they can certainly afford it.
A coupla of points here. I've met and interacted with the finished product several times at length, and without exception, I've been distinctly unimpressed. Especially with the display of math skills. So while Harvard and the like may be 'elite' schools, it seems like mostly what they have to sell is 'leetness. Not unlike the 'leetness associated with an MBA.
Second point: not to be terribly consistent here (you know what they say about consistency and small minds), but I find it odd that one can go on at length about the inadequacy of public schools as opposed to private - especially in terms of how far a dollar will go - and then blandly turn around and talk about private schools costing tens of thousands of dollars a year as a common prerequisite for attending these 'leet institutions. Huh? You mean to say that someone who attends a public school or a private school costing $3,000/yr has very little chance of attending Harvard? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
First, about athletes. There aren't any athletic scholarships (per se, there is some abuse of this rule) in the Ivy League, but that's very different from there being no special admissions for athletes, of which there are TONS. And Harvard plays all the rich-kid-only sports, so being a very good, say, squash player, is actually a pretty good way for a "marginal" Harvard applicant (1350 SAT, 3.7, etc.) to get in easily.
Also...people have talked about Harvard losing out to UT, UNC, UVA, etc. But I would imagine that Harvard has also lost kids to the schools that offer a lot of merit aid (Emory, WashU, Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulane, etc.). When the cost of attending one of these places is $20K less than Harvard, a fair amounnt of kids whose parents make $180K decline the Harvard offer.
And, while this policy obviously isn't the pinnacle of egalitarianism due to, as Megan mentioned, the importance of preparation in the admissions process, it's still a big deal. My guess is that at present, Harvard is pretty polarized between the really rich kids and the ones at the lower end, where financial aid was already generous. Where I went (Rice), the lower nominal tuition and aggressive merit aid meant that we had a lot of kids who got into Harvard (or Yale, MIT, Stanford, Duke, whatever), whose parents made maybe $100K-$250K, and who came to Rice because it was cheaper. That's not to say that a family earning $250K is "middle class", but they're a lot more likely to have a middle class ethos (perhaps because the parents grew up middle class) than the are the millionaires at Harvard. And IMO, that made the university a less threatening place for truly low-income students; sure, your friend has a car and you don't, but it's a '98 Civic, not a new Mercedes.
This is not, in any way but posturing, an egalitarian gesture.
Harvard accepts 1600 new sudents each year to undergrad; 92% of them attend. In a country of 300 million, that's a drop in the bucket, and as Megan points out, they are drawn largely from the private schools. This announcement comes from an elite university trying to grab hold of that last 8%. It's a big deal for Harvard, but not so much for everyone else.
The state schools are America's engines of egalitarianism. Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia are not.
Finally there are some truly weird misperceptions upthread. I'm biased, but I believe the following are accurate:
Even in the "rich kid sports" you have to be world class for it to have any effect on your admission prospects. (As in taking time off from professional tennis for collegelevel of world class)
Everyone at Harvard lives in the dorms. Almost no one keeps a car on campus, and I think I've seen exactly 1 student drive a BMW. No other luxury cars that I can remember.
History majors are rarely good at math, no matter where they went to college.
I actually read an article the other day about how the elimination of tuition for all students at Ivy League schools could make them into national football powers again. Because, as it is now, they are competing with other good schools who are offering "free". What's more, they wouldn't be subject to scholarship limits, as none of the scholarships would be for football.
Of course, the article didn't point out that places like Stanford, Rice, and Northwestern haven't exactly had the easiest time finding kids on a consistent basis who were elite players and adequate students.
Even in the "rich kid sports" you have to be world class for it to have any effect on your admission prospects. (As in taking time off from professional tennis for collegelevel of world class)
In my capacity as Captain Anecdote, I'll mention that I went to high school with a guy who was a good (not great) student whose all-state caliber talent in lacrosse seems to have put him over the top with the Yale admissions office. It seems like "good student, very good athlete" is sometimes a desirable skill set.
If people can't afford to go to Harvard, too bad. This is not a Right, to go to a top college. Its a privelge to be earned by hard work over generations. Maybe those who are whing should go to a state school, work hard, and aspire to send THEIR children to Harvard. My parents are not going to be punished by a socialistic, multi-cult system for their thrift, and neither are my grandparents. The IRS punishes them enough.
Uh-huh. What makes you think Harvard is a 'top college'?
"If people can't afford to go to Harvard, too bad."
It's apparent that Harvard doesn't share your view. They want the best students they can attract, and are trying to remove the obstacle of ability to pay. More than likely they looked at the 8% who refused admission and made a move to attract that 8%.
JB "I went to high school with a guy who was a good (not great) student whose all-state caliber talent in lacrosse seems to have put him over the top with the Yale admissions office."
Just curious - how did you know he was not a great student? Most of the smart jocks I knew did everything they could to hide how smart they were.
"If people can't afford to go to Harvard, too bad."
It's apparent that Harvard doesn't share your view.
That is unfortunate. I think its a crime that ANYBODY can get into Harvard.
Is George serious? Going to Harvard is a privelege earned on your behalf by your grandparents?
"responding to criticism that elite colleges have become unaffordable for ordinary Americans."
I think they should be, hence elite.
"If people can't afford to go to Harvard, too bad."
I had a friend in college who's dad HATED financial aid. He had been saving to fund his childrens education since he got married. His neighbors had spent all their money on vacations, cars, boats, home renovations, etc. When they both filled out the FAFSA the one who had scrimped and saved got $0 in financial aid - the family that - in his words "pissed all their money away."got $12k a year in aid.
While I don't agree with George at all. I can see where he might be comming from.
I'm like the father in jmo's post above, and yes it bothered me (and bothered my wife, and therefore me, a hell of a lot more). But I just put it down as another example of "sometimes the only thing you do about the assholes is not be one of them."
My point about cars was a metaphorical one. I just think that universities with large middle and upper-middle class populations are less threatening to lower-income students than are those that consist primarily of very wealthy and lower-income kids.
Also, non-Olympic-caliber athletes in all sports are consistently admitted to Harvard, Princeton, etc. with just "okay" credentials (for these schools). In fact there is a convoluted process involving the "Academic Index" that attempts to ensure that athletes, on the whole, are within 1-2 standard deviations of the rest of students. Some information is provided here: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2004/12/27.html . The gory details are in Bill Bowen's (former Princeton president) books, the Game of Life and Reclaiming the Game.
The Dad in jmo's tale reminds me of the guys who inappropriately bitched when the iPhone price went down. Seriously, he saved the money for his son's college and he spent it on his son's college. Did he not get what he bargained for? If he'd thought the price for superfancy school was too high, he wouldn't have enrolled his child there. But he obviously thought superfancy college was a good value at whatever price it was and paid the bills when they came.
If his neighbor got more value for his money (ie college AND a new car), more power to him. Since the dad consciously chose not to do that, he's in not really in a position to complain.
Seriously, he saved the money for his son's college and he spent it on his son's college. Did he not get what he bargained for?
He bargained that he would be giving his son an actual advantage over the others, and it turned out not to be the case, and, in fact, the advantage he thought he had was deliberately taken away from him. So, no, he didn't get what he bargained for.
Since the dad consciously chose not to do that, he's in not really in a position to complain.
Sure he is. The guy did what we all say is the right thing to do, and he got bupkis for it, relative to others who did not do the right thing. Why should he not complain?
A lot of people seem to have this idea that your accomplishments, triumphs, losses, virtues, vices relative to other people shouldn't matter to you, but that seems to me to be basically contrary to human nature.
On the other hand, the fact that who your parents are has such an enormous impact on your life chances really does put the lie to the idea that we all start out with an equal chance, doesn't it?
Just curious - how did you know he was not a great student? Most of the smart jocks I knew did everything they could to hide how smart they were.
Just from a conversation I had with him at a party a few weeks before we graduated. He didn't seem to be BSing me, but it's certainly possible. He was a smart guy and a good student, just a cut or two below what you'd think of as Ivy League-caliber, grades-wise. That said, I shouldn't have said sports put him over the top, because I didn't know him that well.
I parsed "hated financial aid" as indicating that Dad was opposed to FA when he started saving -- he knew money would be on the table but he decided a priori that he wasn't going to accept any. That was his decision -- no room for complaint.
Could be I got that wrong, and he didn't come to hate FA until AFTER this episode. In which case, yes I feel some pity for him for not getting as much as the next guy (who may have skillfully worked the system to his advantage, or blindly gotten lucky).
When they both filled out the FAFSA the one who had scrimped and saved got $0 in financial aid - the family that - in his words "pissed all their money away."got $12k a year in aid.
Sorry about the double-post, but I had a question about this: is that all free money? How does it trade off with the debt that the kids of financially irresponsible parents take on in the form of student loans?
I'm just hoping there's some justice in the universe.
My school worked the same way Harvard did. If your family income was 60k you had to pay 6k. If your family made 120k you had to come up with 20k. They basically gave you a discount based on income.
However, if you had the money to pay full tuition upfront you had to pay the whole 45k - reguardless of income. At least that' show I understood it....
So, in short, yes that 12k was free money.
However, if you had the money to pay full tuition upfront you had to pay the whole 45k - reguardless of income. At least that' show I understood it....
So, in short, yes that 12k was free money.
Crap.
Excuse me while I cash out of my IRA and go buy a motorcycle.
JB - am not sure if IRA's count towards financial aid. But I know that if you have 200k in your brokerage account they are going to want a good chunk of it.
But, I do know people who bought two new cars and had the house redone so they could game the finacial aid system.
Rich people sports? How silly.
Just do what my brother did. Imply on your college/grad school applications that you are gay. Don't say it outright--that would be lying. But with the right extracurricular activities, an admission officer cannot but draw desired the conclusion...
Got my brother into Harvard and Yale, with scholarships. Quite an achievement considering we're Chinese and could afford the tuition without aid.
BTW, ..Max.., you don't need the last carat. If you thought about it, you'd realize it's redundant.
I find it really odd given that graduating from Harvard gives you a ticket to a very high income - maybe top 5% of US, certainly top 10%.
And being in the midst of kindergarten admissions, these financial aid packages are really irking me. Our K-12 schools in San Francisco are even more generous - subsidies for families making less than $200K. They call these families "diversity" admits. Basically, these diversity admits are my friends and neighbors and have college and often graduate degrees. They just chose a less demanding lifestyle - either no investment banker or law firm lawyer in the family, or a stay at home mom. I understand why they choose not to have careers requiring 70 hour work weeks and why they choose not to have both parents work. I just don't understand why I should be subsidizing them.
I should have proofed before I posted - but what's the big deal about a Harvard student borrowing to pay for their education? It's probably the best investment any 18 year old could make. It's just a little goofy to me that a family making $250,000 a year, should subsidize a family making $175,000 per year. Most likely, the income differential is due to lifestyle choices. All this financial aid makes me wonder why the heck I'm working so hard.
George Staines is funny. He's clearly nervous that he and his kids wouldn't be able to make it into Harvard on merit.
The problem is that the only reason Harvard is Harvard is because of merit-based admissions. There are going to be fewer and fewer spots for the George Staineses of the world. And hence, one hopes, fewer and fewer George Staineses.
JB - am not sure if IRA's count towards financial aid. But I know that if you have 200k in your brokerage account they are going to want a good chunk of it.
But, I do know people who bought two new cars and had the house redone so they could game the finacial aid system.
Huh. Are those loopholes there because the people in charge of financial aid just don't care, or are they impossible to close, practically speaking?
It sounds like the financial aid system, for all intents and purposes, is designed to wipe out the savings of financially responsible middle-class and upper-middle class parents.
But why would anyone want a Harvard education? As I've said, after having interacted with several of the finished products of that institution, I have not come away impressed. I cannot detect in any of these specimens evidence of a 'better' education, no matter how one defines 'better'.
So what's the real reason people want their kids to go to Harvard?
JB, I can't speak for the financial aid system now, but that certainly was my impression of it 30 years ago.
SOV: You try to get your kids into Harvard so they can make friends with the other kids that make it into Harvard, and hope that some of those will come into a position to hire your kids. A $50,000 summer camp would serve about as well if the Bushes, Kennedys, etc. would send their kids to it...
It's probably the best investment any 18 year old could make.
Numerous studies have said the opposite: that kids who could get into "top" schools but go to state schools do just as well, financially, as those who go to "top" schools. Once you get your first job, people notice your performance more than your pedigree, and that performance is more determined by the things on your college application than your transcript. Be honest: most of what you learned in college is useless.
There's undoubtedly some networking value in elite colleges, but frankly most of us--even from top schools--don't wind up moving in circles where that sort of thing matters too much.
I say this all as a Williams grad who got no aid, of course.