<p>I spoke with a representative of a top 30 LAC who said that given the endowment hits his school took (like everyone else’s), and their commitment to keep FA for their current students all four years, that over the next few years they were going to consider ability-to-pay in admissions to try to keep themselves afloat. They considered their obligation to keep their current students fully aided a greater obligation than having the next few years be need-blind as they’ve been in the past.
While they’re not publicizing this, this makes perfect sense – tough times call for tough choices, and I don’t see anything wrong.</p>
<p>As to
<br>
No. Colleges offer a product. They are free at any time to say “We’re not giving any financial aid. Pay full freight or don’t bother.” We don’t have to like that, and there would be a political ****-storm around it, but it’s not discrimination, any more than the Mercedes dealer doesn’t let me buy a Mercedes unless I can afford it.</p>
<p>Calmom - that’s exactly what I am saying. I don’t beat around bushes about what great education could do for people. My sister went to Dartmouth for UG, and then to Stanford for Law. With her Stanford degree, she got a job at one of the most prestigious law firms in NYC. If she had gone to Rutgers, it wouldn’t have happened. Now even 25+ years later, where she went to school is still a factor in her getting jobs. Same with my brother, and I am seeing it again with D1. It’s not education at those elite schools, it is the network that would last a life time. </p>
<p>I just typed “But it is a different topic.” Then I realized it is not. If the elite institutions can uses “ability to pay” to keep people out, then they becomes the gate keeper in preserving the wealth for the elites.</p>
<p>I have seen a major shift in expectations since my own school days. I had HS classmates who attended some expensive private schools( Northwestern/Cornell/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame,etc.), but they were all students from families who had money. The rest of us (some very strong students) simply applied to/attended state schools or even (in my case and many others) 2 years at cc and then transferred. It never occurred to us to apply to a “dream school” that we might not afford without a lot of aid.</p>
<p>In certain fields, I absolutely agree. That is not to say that a mover and a shaker like your sister wouldn’t have been successful if she’d “only” gone to Rutgers. It could have been a different kind of success. In my field, I’ve got people with top-name degrees … and people with no-name degrees … and no one makes a distinction past the first job. And job performance is all that counts.</p>
<p>There are colleges out there who monitor their students’ debt, at least there used to be. My husband went to med school when costs were around $25,000-30,000 a year. We had just gotten married and were not receiving any financial help from our families. Even though we were independent adults, we had to supply financial information from his parents The school decided his parents could help (even though there were two younger siblings still at home), so all we were left with was applying for loans. Thankfully they were low interest loans, so we went ahead and did it.</p>
<p>During my husbands 3rd year we were contacted by the financial aid office from his med school. They told us they had received money from a donor for financial aid. They looked through their students’ debts and decided to offer 0% interest loans to the students who were the most in debt. We felt happy that we were getting the loan, but a little scared that we were among the most in debt at the school.</p>
<p>They had kept tabs on us and found a way to help. I was impressed. </p>
<p>Schools should accept students who they believe will succeed; once someone has been accepted the schools somehow need to provide real financial advice.</p>
<p>Sorry, but this is a popular fallacy. I can’t let this one go. It just isn’t true. While the “Name” of the law school can get you noticed easier, it ultimately comes down to how well you did in law school. I personally know several Rutgers grads who received offers from top Wall Street white shoe firms. Did you know that Harvard Law Professor and the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (formerly known as TARP) appointed by the President of the United States, Elizabeth Warren, is a University of Houston and Rutgers Law grad? She’s been on the cover of Newsweek and interviewed on every major television and cable station including CNN. That’s right the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School isn’t a Stanford grad, she’s a Rutgers grad. While there is some prejudice when it comes to certain schools, Rutgers is no 3rd-tier law school. While it is probably true that an “A” student at Stanford will be preferred over an “A” student from Rutgers, an “A” student from Rutgers is definitely preferable to a “B” student from Stanford. Just ask Elizabeth. :)</p>
<p>And Calmom, you are absolutely spot on. There is nothing to prevent someone from going to a top law school from a public U. The president of my company is a Penn State grad who went to Harvard Law. Oldfort has some old thinking, IMHO.</p>
<p>I’d also add that so far, between my 2 kids, the one who seems to have won out in the college “network” department seems to be my son, who graduated from a CSU. </p>
<p>I also think that there’s an opportunity cost when resources are tied up unnecessarily. The best entry-level jobs for potential career development and advancement are not necessarily the highest paying, and students carrying too much debt might find their career choices restricted over and over again by the need to service that debt. </p>
<p>In any case, the elite schools all provide 100% need based aid to their undergrad, so the issue of discrimination based on income isn’t really relevant – if Dartmouth accepts a student, they provide funding as well.</p>
<p>Would her life have been appreciably different if she’d gone elsewhere and gotten a job at one of the most prestigious law firms in, oh, say, Minneapolis? Or Atlanta? Or Dallas? Or Philadelphia? You can still make a hell of a lot of money (if that’s the end game) and live a hell of a nice lifestyle and be intellectually challenged and work with smart people and all that. There are tons of opportunities in this world, not just along the already-beaten paths.</p>
<p>Getting an elite education is not the only way to success, but it does make it easier. My sister was nominated to her state supreme court because of many factors, but one of them was her degree. She was recently asked to be a GC to a start up company. Again, her degree came into play. Back when she was applying to law schools, if you went to Yale UG it was much easier to get into Harvard law, not the case from Dartmouth. </p>
<p>I am at work, not as much time to do research. Why not look up distribution of students to top law schools. I viewed D1 list of students in her intern class for this summer, and they are not from tier 2 schools. Yes, this could be her first job, and after that it is up to her to do what she she will with it. </p>
<p>Let’s not focus on my family situation. This could be for any school.</p>
<p>"
One problem is that families aren’t always upfront about what they can pay. If they can/will pay, they often “cry poor” at first to see how much aid they can get. Then, when the aid package isn’t good, they cough up the money. (I don’t mean your dad, oldfort )"</p>
<p>Generous grandparents and other extended family and even friends often fill in the financial aid gap. Some people also hide assets and have much more money than their aid applications indicate. </p>
<p>I don’t think colleges should tell people to turn them down so as to avoid excessive debt. I think that students and their parents should make their own decisions.</p>
<p>I think a college could legitimately use ability to pay as a factor, if it wants to.
A student who can’t afford it might be more at risk to transfer out for economic reasons.
This can create more spaces for the college to have to fill later on. Plus, bad feelings, failure to create a happy alumnus, bad press as we have seen, etc.</p>
<p>I think you have the typical Northeastern mindset that certain degrees are the only way to open certain doors. As for, say, a start-up company in Dallas … an SMU degree and the connections it brings might be far more valuable than a Stanford law one. Honestly, it’s like people from the Northeast need to get out more. I know the insularity; I was raised that way. But enough already. It’s the year 2010.</p>
<p>One of the reasons this is an issue is because attending a high caliber LAC or university offers upward social mobility. </p>
<p>The following was posted by ConCerndDad, and offers an alternative rating system when considering schools. "Washington Monthly’s 2009 rating, ‘based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), Research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs), and Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country.’ "</p>
<p>Some families will do almost anything in order to help their child, who shows promise, achieve their potential because they understand that the right connections matter. I have a friend whose son is extremely talented but his brilliancy was fostered by being in the correct LAC setting, and then professors in the field guiding him to the necessary internships, writing recommendations for grad school etc. Who you know, matters. </p>
<p>That’s why this becomes an issue. I don’t think a kid should be denied admission based on ability to pay, but realistically there needs to be some mechanism that helps parents and students put the brakes on when it comes to large amounts of debt. Our credit union wouldn’t float us a loan for more than what we could afford. Why are corporations giving out private loans clearly allowing people to over-extend?</p>
<p>Maybe we should do in this country what some European nations do. If you’re brainy enough to gain admission to a top flight school, then it’s paid for because the greater good is served by fostering talented individuals. (Yes, I know this approach is controversial.)</p>
<p>*Not true. Only a minority of schools claim to be need blind. *</p>
<p>Actually, most schools are need blind. Most state schools are need-blind. I think you’re confusing “need-blind” with schools that are "need blind AND meet 100% of need.</p>
<p>Name 10 publics that are not need blind. You probably can’t. There are hundreds of publics and nearly all are need blind.</p>
<p>“My sister was nominated to her state supreme court because of many factors, but one of them was her degree. She was recently asked to be a GC to a start up company. Again, her degree came into play. Back when she was applying to law schools, if you went to Yale UG it was much easier to get into Harvard law, not the case from Dartmouth.”</p>
<p>True for big cities in the NE. Most people in this country don’t live in those places, and for most people probably a degree from local unniversity (even a third tier) or from their state flagship will open more doors than would an Ivy degree. Saying this as a native of the Northeast who is an Ivy grad, and no longer lives in the Northeast. My Ivy degree doesn’t do anything for me in the part of the country where I live. I’d have much better options and connections if I’d gone to state flagship or state wannabe flagship.</p>
<p>Oldfort’s Op sure has some questions worth considering. Should a person selling a service(or product) be obligated to counsel a prospective buyer on the possible effects of the purchase years after the purchase?
Do we expect a car dealer to do so? A realtor? The stock market? Should the realtor refuse to sell to a prospective buyer if he feels that later on, years down the road, the buyer might have second thoughts about the purchase?
Why is a college any different? Who among us pretends they are only providing the service of higher education because they want young adults to be smarter? What prof doesn’t want paid? What secretary? What custodian?
A college is selling a service- the education they offer in exchange for the money or value a potential student offers. I think it is so wrong, the idea that my big brother has to look out for me in such a free-market purchase.</p>
<p>Oldfort even says “most of us would consider it a form of discrimination” if colleges considered as a factor, who could pay the bill in their admission policies. If Oldfort means discrimination in its real definition,(selection or preference) I agree. But if by “discrimination” oldfort really means illegal discrimination then I adamantly disagree.
Illegal discrimination here would refer to refusing to sell a service because of gender, religion, or ethnic background(for example). IMO there is no way in the world anyone other than Oldfort would believe that refusing to sell a service to someone because they cannot pay for the service is illegal discrimination. If I offer to sell a car for 10k, and a buyer has only 6k then I can choose not to sell to him and it isn’t illegal. I want paid in full- am I wrong? For some other reason it may be in my best interest to sell for less- and that’s ok, but to be forced to accept his 6k? No way. The bank may or may not loan the prospective buyer money to buy my car. That is between the potential buyer and his bank- the bank is in the business of loaning money, not me. In my example I am offering a car for sale- not deciding whether or not it is smart for a potential buyer to buy it. </p>
<p>Would it be nice if a college thoroughly counseled a prospective student on his potential debt, and if the school’s crystal ball could predict what income he’d have after graduation? Yes. Would it be nice to teach kid about income/expenses if the parents failed to do so? Yes. But obligated? I say no way and instead I offer the student and family need to be more responsible for their own decisions, and not try to legally bind others to make good decisions for them.</p>
<p>My sister was nominated to her state supreme court because of many factors, but one of them was her degree.</p>
<p>Probably because of where she got her LAW degree from. Her undergrad degree wasn’t likely part of the big consideration. Your sis could have gone to UCLA and then Stanford and ended up in the same spot. :)</p>
<p>The bottom line is that elite schools are doing a good job trying to meet the needs for their low-income students - so those schools aren’t in danger of becoming bastions of only the rich.</p>
<p>However, other pricey schools that can’t meet need (and can’t come close) are more likely to become bastions of the more affluent. That won’t mean that every student is rich…it’s just that many will be affluent.</p>
<p>I know that USD has been accused of that. They don’t have great aid, they are pricey, therefore many students are from affluent families who can pay.</p>