<p>GG, </p>
<p>I stand corrected. Both of your reimbursement links are referring to undergrad reimbursement. And BOTH say it is tax free unless it is to (UNM) “domestic partners and certain dependents” or (Columbia) “same-sex domestic partners and the dependents of same-sex domestic partners is considered taxable income by the federal government”.</p>
<p>So, Tax Free? Please show me.</p>
<p>Regarding the preference, you unfortunately stopped your quote too soon above. So let me repost it with the rest:
</p>
<p>Having “highly educated” parents who give their children a “boost” in “achievement” is hardly the same as “but at most universities children of faculty only have to meet the academic criteria and they are in, tuition-free.”</p>
<p>Regarding U Mich, interesting quote. What caught my eye was the part about 20 points to “donors, legislators…and other key supporters”. Guess faculty have lots of company there! In 2003 University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman said "It is true that a perfect SAT score yields just 12 points in that system. " Curious how you calculate that a 20 point boost elsewhere then is the same as a 256 point SAT boost, since the most help one could get from the SAT there is 12 points, and these kids get 20.</p>
<p>Carnevale? I totally agree with him, especially when talking about the top 734 universities (146 + 588), which is what HE’s referring to. But I am referring to highly selective universities. If we’re only talking about the Ohio States and such, then OK you win. But that was part of my original point, if you go back and read the post.</p>
<p>So, again, please provide me with some evidence that highly selective universities give “a very strong preference,”. And tax the benefit.</p>
<p>I do not see it from any of your posts.</p>
<p>Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. I did.</p>