Yes, the personal as well as miscellaneous expenses turned out to be very different for a kid who doesn’t seem to need much, and so that has shaved some dimes off here and there for our family. Having a student recognize that they should order books for classes online instead of buy them at the campus bookstore is a plus, as well.
Overall, I cannot imagine not steering kids with strong profiles to look into privates that may truly bridge that EFC gap with institutional merit aid.
@Waiting2exhale There are wonderful volunteer opportunities to help those students you describe if they live in major metropolitan areas. Even then they can fall through the cracks. Woe is the bright student that has limited internet access and lives in a rural area.
This isn’t just about Ivy quality kids. Many state schools have low bars, good kids who won’t begin to qualify for merit, and paltry aid, with loans built in.
Not all privates are meet full need. A lot of bright enough kids posted about gaps in funding, this season.
BTW, more colleges are offering rental books now, through the bookstore.
Or you rent online. Not buy.
“UIUC is a bargain in comparison at $13,045 to $15,197 (depending on major), but (like tOSU) is a rather big stretch for a student from a poor family.”
Is that full cost of attendance or just tuition? Unlike tOSU, Illinois is not in a major metro area, so hardly any students have the option to commute.
I agree with Pizzagirl’s assessment of her children’s high school, which is easily in the top 10% of schools in the state. You can get a great education there, but the counseling is the type that keeps folks like me in business.
@lookingforward The Illinois issue came up in the conversation about Ivy Caliber students and the fact that I thought those kids could combine need and merit at their state schools for the same out of pocket as Harvard.
I see that now. I just think the costs of some state schools are getting out of hand for too many kids.
My bff’s kid, a top performer, got ginormous merit and some need aid from a great public. Harvard would have cost more.
That is net price from the net price calculator for an in-state student with EFC = $0. It starts with an estimated cost of attendance of $35,340 (for the more expensive majors like engineering and CS), which includes $11,010 room and board. After deducting $20,143 of estimated grants and scholarships, the net price is $15,197.
Try it yourself: https://secure.osfa.illinois.edu/NPC/StatusInfo.asp
Our school has no Naviance. I have only heard of it on this site. And it’s an above average school serving a diverse community that includes a fair number of well educated parents. Our guidance counselors have a little over 200 students each. They do not do individualized college counseling. I only realized this in fall of senior year when no such thing had happened. They run sessions in the auditorium where they explain to parents how to fill out fafsa and things like that. That is the college counseling. No one is sitting around thinking about what college my kid should go to.
That said, my kid’s GC certainly knew who she was. I think even a busy GC would notice really outstanding students. They have to approve the course registrations and ours printed out the transcript also.
^^ The estimate I get from the UIUC net price calculator, for that scenario (engineering major, EFC=0) , is $15,197. A suggested financing plan includes $8500/year in student loans (which is over the federal limit) and $3,897 “that the family may need to borrow or contribute from savings and/or current earnings” (even though their EFC is zero).
I’m not sure why this thread has focused so much on guidance counseling or on costs & aid at a couple of state universities. I suppose that if Harvard went to a no-cost policy, it’s an open question whether more GCs would be steering more kids away from local universities and towards Harvard. I would expect the biggest effect of that policy to be on top students in the upper middle class “donut hole”, some of whom don’t apply to expensive no-merit private schools because they assume their families couldn’t (or wouldn’t) cover the costs. I doubt GC “counseling” has much impact on those decisions.
Anyway, Harvard’s admission rate doesn’t have too much more room to fall. The yield rate probably doesn’t have too much more room to rise (since many of the 20% who turn down a Harvard offer are being lost to a few other “elite” schools, which may well follow Harvard’s lead, eventually). I would expect the biggest effects of this policy to be felt on a personal level, not in the admission stats and maybe not even in the student demographics.
The reason this thread turned to that is because Harvard becoming free would likely only benefit those who can actually afford to pay. It is already virtually free to those who can’t afford to pay and for many who would have to pay at their state school. Many people don’t know that and a couple of posters felt that was due to guidance counseling problems.
Back to original premise- the late of candidates probably doesn’t have a very good chance of being elected given they have two pretty controversial stances. Harvard alumni aren’t likely to vote for them.
Very large not-for-profits (colleges and hospitals) are very knowledgeable about the requirements under the law for tax exempt entities to not jeopardize that status. Federal laws have gotten tougher for hospitals in the last twenty years and they are likely to get tougher for very well funded universities too. They won’t go as far as making Harvard free though. I could see legacy admissions and developmental admits would become problematic since they advantage those that the taxing officials don’t like to see benefit from tax exempt status.
“I’m not sure why this thread has focused so much on guidance counseling or on costs & aid at a couple of state universities. I suppose that if Harvard went to a no-cost policy, it’s an open question whether more GCs would be steering more kids away from local universities and towards Harvard”
I think the point being made was that for most kids in this country, there isn’t a GC “steering” them anywhere. And that there are likely kids who are HYP material who haven’t a clue that HYP is already economically feasible to them already. I cannot overemphasize how little it is known in the real world that H is essentially free to lower income students.
So the premise is that it’s better for Harvard to rip off those “who can afford to pay” than to let the can pay to rip off Harvard? Why are people so against " helping the rich" even when their own interest is not affected? It’s Harvard’s money not yours, and as I suggested earlier, with some “arrangement”, Harvard wouldn’t have to get poorer after the move.
Harvard going free will do two things FOR Harvard. One, it will be advertised as a free No.1 college, which will significantly boost the under-represented groups they are seeking to fill in their student body (and they may save on the outreaching effort). No need for a “knowledgeable counselor” from an inner city school to direct students to NPC because “Harvard is free!” is a much simpler message to get. They may even see a boost of applicants from under-represented states because I believe the distance and the cost associated with travel afar is one major reason why some states are under-represented in this Cambridge based school. Two, the many middle/upper middle class families caught in the doughnut hole right now and opt out may be back in the game again. It doesn’t hurt Harvard to have an even bigger applicant pool.
Harvard is a tax exempt entity. You and I help fund it by letting it avoid millions of dollars in federal taxes. No one should be in favor of it being ripped off.
I agree Harvard should do more and they have the money to do it but making Harvard free to children of millionaires is not where I want my tax benefit to go. Maybe they can use some of that money to pay travel expenses for students with EFC less than a certain amount. Maybe they adjust their CSS profile from penalizing those with illiquid farm and ranch land. Or maybe they do what Yale is doing and grow enrollment.
“One, it will be advertised as a free No.1 college, which will significantly boost the under-represented groups they are seeking to fill in their student body (and they may save on the outreaching effort). No need for a “knowledgeable counselor” from an inner city school to direct students to NPC because “Harvard is free!” is a much simpler message to get. They may even see a boost of applicants from under-represented states because I believe the distance and the cost associated with travel afar is one major reason why some states are under-represented in this Cambridge based school.”
You’re an elite boarding school parent, if I remember correctly, and showing all the biases therein.
Harvard is ALREADY free to many of the bright kids in Oklahoma. And they don’t know it, because no one tells them about it, and they still perceive Harvard (if they think about it at all) as another planet, not for people like them. Making Harvard free for all -and not just those making under $x - isn’t going to change that one bit. I think you’re in such an establishment bubble that you don’t appreciate how these schools are still another planet for a lot of bright, deserving kids.
Yes, the distance and the cost are one reason why there aren’t that many kids from Oklahoma et al. You want to know the other reason? Because Harvard doesn’t have the oh-my-God-genuflect reaction there as it does elsewhere. It’s not the ticket to riches and power that it can be elsewhere.
Again, think of Texas and Mississippi as examples. You can get just as far in those places - and maybe even farther - from SMU, Texas A&M, Ole Miss as you could from HYP.
The brand power of HYP is highest in the northeast, which is why their student body skews disproportionately to the northeast. (The same for most every other elite college.) I grew up in the northeast and I totally get how people there think it’s the center of the world - that’s how I was raised. But really, it’s not all that important to people from elsewhere.
This is not a slam at HYP et al on any dimension - they are all fabulous schools. But you can’t make the mistake of believing that brand power is equal everywhere.
Millionnaires? In what world do only millionaires are full paying in Harvard? What do you think the current tuition revenue is going? Back to tax payer’s pockets or spent on infrastructure of the university? Hint: Harvard’s endowment and ongoing donations are big enough to not to resort to tuition revenue, which in effect is just continue helping their endowment getting a little it bigger every year.
I can read a financial statement better than the average Joe. I can even put one together TYVM. I am well aware of what is happening at Harvard. Okay- so let Harvard increase discounts to those up to incomes of X but giving it free to everyone including millionaires and international students isn’t realistic long term and as I said doesn’t serve the public interest.
“the premise is that it’s better for Harvard to rip off those “who can afford to pay” than to let the can pay to rip off Harvard? Why are people so against " helping the rich” even when their own interest is not affected?"
I paid for two kids full pay at elite schools. Of course I would have liked to have it be free, but I’d rather them do outreach and help poorer kids than to relieve my “burden.”
Of course, poorer kids need more help and they will remain the priority, but what I say is NO ONE gets hurt and almost everyone benefits from Harvard going free, including and in particular to less informed kids in schools with poor counseling. Again, what’s to lose?
They could eliminate required Student Contribution. At least for students with smaller EFCs. This would not be “helping the rich”
Harvard’s endowment is used for far more than undergraduate support. If Harvard were to be required to spend more of its endowment I’d like to see more money going to support graduate students, many of whom struggle to pay the cost of a Harvard graduate degree.
Harvard could also choose to increase its PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) payments to Cambridge, Allston/Brighton, and Boston.
Like others here, I don’t see the benefit of paying for the children of hedge fund managers to attend Harvard.