<p>
Lol, sewhappy, so true ;)</p>
<p>Why should the $5 million household pay more?</p>
<p>They are getting the same product.</p>
<p>I could maybe, MAYBE, see an argument for public schools going on a sliding scale for income like a tax (although it would be a major stretch). A private school? No way. And the majority of those 50k+ schools are private.</p>
<p>I like Harvard’s FA policy. Everyone pays 10% of family income. The only change I would propose is that to remove the income range of <180k. Everyone pay 10% of income or full tuition (55k) whichevet is less.
Therefore families income 181 k would not have to pay 35k more tuition than families making 180k.
Also, FA based on income alone is not fair. At least they should subtract state tax if they don’t take cost of living into account. 200k in CA is equivalent to 120k in TX.</p>
<p>I don’t think Harvard has quite such a steep cliff. From playing with their NPC, it’s 10% up to $150K, and percentage of the amount over $150K is around 50%.</p>
<p>Given the size of their endowment, it is inexcusable for them to charge anything, but that’s a different discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should the $15k household pay less? They’re also getting the same product.</p>
<p>I’m not opposed to helping the poor. I am opposed to soaking the rich.</p>
<p>Everyone should pay 10% of income (up to the cost of a building).</p>
<p>^ $2k is quite a stretch if you’re only making 20k (using roughly the income for a poverty level family of 3).</p>
<p>^ Harvard requires a $4600 student contribution, according to the NPC. I don’t think $2K would be a big obstacle, even if it all had to be borrowed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The value of the product received - Harvard education - is the same to both your family and to Eliot Spitzer. Why should the cost then be different?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, so we’re applying this to schools without loans already in the package. Got it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why should our cost be higher for the same product than families with less income? And why should we pay a fixed percent of our income in taxes for the same “product” as other families such that we are all paying varying absolute amounts for that same “product.”</p>
<p>I think the FA model at colleges is inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical. It is couched in terms of fairness and progressiveness, but it most certainly benefits the extremely rich.</p>
<p>Most financial things benefit the super rich.</p>
<p>That includes taxes too.</p>
<p>“The value of the product received - Harvard education - is the same to both your family and to Eliot Spitzer. Why should the cost then be different?”</p>
<p>Because Harvard wants both students, and one (the less rich one) is more costly than the other. Harvard is not selling a product. It is buying the student body it wants.</p>
<p>Hanna, I get that line of reasoning but in reality the kid whose family earns $150K also “costs more” than the kid whose family earns $1,500K, right? A lot of kids going to schools with a cost structure like Harvard whose families are in the full freight zone but who do not have longterm and significant wealth find the “cost” of sending their kid too great and instead send them elsewhere.</p>
<p>Price discrimination is a tricky business. Harvard and other colleges engage in price discrimination but not in a consistent and, imo, effective way.</p>
<p>I think the model in place is fantastic for low-income families and very wealthy families. Not so great for the sort of petit bourgeoise families.</p>
<p>I think FA the way it is helps the poor, kills the middle/upper middle class, and does not soak the rich.
I agree with notrichenough: I’m not opposed to helping the poor. I am opposed to soaking the rich. I would also add that it stinks to be in the middle (from a tuition perspective).</p>
<p>Noone has a right to an expensive private education. Access to quality public education for all is crucial, IMO.</p>
<p>I would like to point out that at the vast, vast majority of colleges, poor kids get nothing more than federal aid which isn’t much. So you can talk about the FA policies at a handful of super rich schools but FA in general doesn’t work like that. </p>
<p>I hate the thinking on the FA forum by many posters who seem to think poor kids get a free ride everywhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The poorest kids at my college were the ones on large student loans. They also had the most spending money and the most toys in their dorm rooms.</p>
<p>Wow. All the advantages of being poor…</p>
<p>Where can I sign up?</p>