<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, it would be interesting to see. But keep in mind, Harvard gives financial aid to kids from households earning up to $200K. If 60% of undergrads get FA, I think we can conclude that 40% come from households earning > $200K. But since households earning $200K+ represent about 2.65% of all households, I hardly think the well-to-do are underrepresented at Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, no. Harvard’s roughly $30 billion endowment pays out (at the standard 5%) about $1.5 billion a year. The revenue generated by full-pay undergrads is pocket change in comparison. And Harvard insists it costs more to give each undergrad a Harvard education than even the full-pays pay in tuition. In other words, Mother Harvard subsidizes EVERY undergraduate, full-pays included. There’s no cross-subsidization of students on FA by full-pays. Not even close.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that the ground has now shifted and the last couple of posts are now apparently pleading that elite colleges need to give a legacy preference because they need the money that full-pays provide. Hah! If that’s the case, then why don’t they just be honest and say they’re no longer need-blind? And if they need the money, a legacy preference seems an awkward and inefficient way to get there. At least some of the parents of Harvard legacies are history professors or government lawyers or heads of NGOs who don’t make $200K/year. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? I wonder how much NSF and NIH and DOE and DOD money goes into those fancy research labs every year? I wonder how many billions in federal, state, and local tax deductions and tax exemptions went into building the endowments that built those labs and libraries and office buildings? I wonder how much they save each year by being exempt from local property taxes? I wonder how many millions they bring in from federal Pell grants and federally subsidized student loans going directly into their coffers? The idea that these elite private schools aren’t hogs at the public trough is risible.</p>