<p>Let’s play that one through. What if they are? Let’s say tomorrow all the Ivy League schools (or all the top 20’s, pick your poison, whatever) jointly announced “We’re no longer giving financial aid. We’re not need blind. The sticker price is $50K / year. That’s what it is. Either you can afford to pay, in which case we’d love to have you, or if you can’t … your state flagship or local comm college is thattaway, and we wish you well.”</p>
<p>Of course there would be a lot of dust around such announcement and people would be outraged that these schools were no longer serving the role of helping aid social mobility. But let’s say that dust settled, as all dust will.</p>
<p>Would those schools be any less elite or influential? After all, the smart kids who are from wealthier families aren’t going to stop applying there in protest. They’ll still apply and the schools will still have very smart, accomplished students who will go on to do neat things.</p>
<p>But these schools would have the right to do that. It’s not discriminatory. They offer a product. It reflects well on them to be able to say “we have students from the 'hood to Exeter” and “we help students who don’t have money afford our education” but they aren’t obligated to at all, nor is it discriminatory if they ended FA. No one is entitled to a top education any more than they are to a Mercedes.</p>
<p>Yes. It’s really you and not the school you attended. The school helps you get your foot into the door but after that it’s up to you.</p>
<p>I know a Stanford law grad who is selling electronics at Walmart now. He had a good job at an excellent law firm but when the firm dissolved he became and alcoholic and lost his license and his life spiraled down.</p>
<p>NYU is, to some extent, like this - they make no bones that they can’t support all comers, and chances are most kids who go to NYU <em>are</em> more affluent than the norm. So what, though?</p>
<p>A college will lose out on economic “diversity” in their student body. Some colleges think that this is important and, if they have the $$, they use their financial aid policies to tweak this. </p>
<p>This would explain why the some of the top undergraduate schools in the nation have started to not only give great aid to the lower socioeconomic families, but to the families in the middle.</p>
<p>*NYU is, to some extent, like this - they make no bones that they can’t support all comers, and chances are most kids who go to NYU <em>are</em> more affluent than the norm. So what, though? *</p>
<p>Oh I agree. (but be careful about saying such. there’s an NYU parent who gets quite upset at the mere suggestion.)</p>
<p>Maybe this sounds cold, but I think deciding on a school should be very similar to buying a house. Based upon the lessons learned in the housing industry as of late, would you agree to buy a home that would put you in debt up to your eyes just because you believe that house will ultimately bring you the comfort and status you are looking for? Or should you buy a more affordable home that will allow you to save some money, travel, etc.? Again, based upon the events of the last few years everyone out there should say the later is the no-brainer. Even though a college decision involves your child, I believe the financial logic remains the same.</p>
<p>Just as most would agree that the banks should not let homeowners go in over their heads, schools should have the same responsibility.</p>
<p>Yes, we get this. I’m asking you to play out what happens if they decide tomorrow that it’s unimportant and that they are ending FA and it’s cash-upfront, $50K/ year, pay it or go elsewhere and have a nice life. What would happen to these colleges? Yeah, there would be a publicity dust-up, but do you really think once the dust settled, these colleges would be any less prestigious? Right now, however, it’s a game that they are all caught up in. One changes the stakes and the others have to follow. They can change the stakes by offering more aid to the middle and upper middle class (as H has done) … or they could change the stakes by taking aid away entirely. And I don’t think they would drop from the top of the rankings heaps as a result.</p>
<p>*Maybe this sounds cold, but I think deciding on a school should be very similar to buying a house. … Even though a college decision involves your child, I believe the financial logic remains the same.</p>
<p>Just as most would agree that the banks should not let homeowners go in over their heads, schools should have the same responsibility.*</p>
<p>I don’t think that logic is cold. I think it’s sound. One problem we have is that some kids (and some parents) think they should be able to go to whatever college accepts them without concern of finances - as if going to a dream college is the equivalent of life-saving surgery which should be denied to no one. </p>
<p>How many times do we see kids on CC announcing that they’re compiling their lists and they don’t want to consider cost - because they’ll pay for it SOMEHOW…or they’ll say, “Cost should never be the factor” or “I worked too hard in high school not to get to go to my dream school.” </p>
<p>Can you imagine if a hard-working - but modest income person - announced, “cost should never be a factor when deciding a car (or home)” or “I work too hard not to get my dream house (or dream car).” Isn’t it that kind of thinking that has led to the credit crisis and debt crisis that many are facing?</p>
<p>Let’s remember Oldfort’s Op though. I don’t think anyone would argue a school shouldn’t have a right to choose more diversity in economics. They can choose to pay for a student that can’t pay his own way. This topic isn’t if it’s good or bad for a school to choose to accept students that can’t pay. The topic is should they have to, or should they have to counsel prospective applicants about their possible debt in years to come. </p>
<p>Oldfort’s Op indicated “most would feel” it is illegal to consider ability to pay as a factor in admission. Oldfort’s Op would indicate a college MUST not consider ability to pay as a factor. I disagree. I think it is a legitimate factor.</p>
<p>In the old days, you went down to your local bank with your records and documents and met the bank manager and discussed a mortgage with them before filling out the application. Perhaps we should do something similar with college loans.</p>
<p>Of course, if a school decided to just take thier financial aid budget and use that to just evenly reduce their tuition, you come up with Harvard could reduce its tuition to below $13,000 and most of the top tier schools could reduce their tuition to the $20,000 or less range:</p>
<p>Harvard tuition and fees in 2008- 2009 - $36,173</p>
<p>992 out of 1,652 incoming students received need based grants and scholarships that averaged $39,164 each.</p>
<p>That would average $23,157 for each of the 1,652 incoming students and would reduce tuition to below $13,000 for all 1,652 students.</p>
<p>I don’t see why they would want to. I mean, how many people can just up and afford even as “little” as $10,000 per year for school? Not many people have that kind of extra money without scholarships involved. It gets even worse when you’re considering schools that cost $20-30K and beyond per year. </p>
<p>I’m not saying it’s right that schools charge this kind of money. I’m just saying that the school themselves would lose a LOT if they only admitted the people who could pay. There wouldn’t be many people who could go!</p>
<p>People need to just be more careful about the kinds of situations they get themselves into. There was recently that article about the Ivy league grad who seemed to just suddenly realized how much debt she was in and tried to blame the school for it! How can someone just go through all those years without realizing how much debt is adding up?</p>
<p>Of course schools are going to tell you to take out the loans and pay their ridiculous tuition fees. If they told everyone who couldn’t afford it or wouldn’t be able to pay them back they would have hardly any students! The school has no way of knowing what kind of job you’re actually going to get after college. You might major in one thing, but especially with liberal arts majors there’s all kinds of paths you might take after graduation.</p>
<p>Again, I’m not saying it’s good that schools charge this much. Students need to just be aware of what kind of debt situations they’re getting themselves into!</p>
<p>I think the real question here isn’t “should a college use a student’s ability to pay as factor in admission”, it’s “who (if anyone) bears the responsibility to protect stupid people from themselves?”</p>
<p>Should it be the school? I don’t think so - as several have pointed out, schools don’t always have a complete picture of where the money might come from, or a particular student’s and their family’s willingness to sacrifice and responsibly manage their debt. It would be responsible of the school to have a dialog about the ramifications, but that’s it.</p>
<p>IMO, the responsibility (if any) falls on those who are enabling the borrowing - the lenders. They need to do more to make sure that the student has a reasonable chance of paying back the loan, or if it is the parent, making sure the parent has the means. They should not be able to hide behind bankruptcy laws and government guarantees to shield them from the risk.</p>
<p>To that end, the bankruptcy laws should be changed back so that student loans can be discharged. Not right away - we don’t want students declaring bankruptcy the second they graduate, but after some period of time (7 or 10 years) the option should be on the table.</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t it be easier for NYU to just reject students who just couldn’t afford the tuition, or ask for evidence of ability to pay before given admission?”</p>
<p>No, because surprises happen all the time. Grandparents may suddenly materialize when the student gets into a top school. The student may win an outside scholarship that isn’t awarded until June. A parent may take a job at an employer that helps with tuition. NYU should let the qualified students in, then help them make a smart decision about what to do next.</p>
Harvard is an interesting special case - for less than 1% of their endowment per year (even after getting crushed in the stock market), Harvard could eliminate tuition for everyone. For less than 1.5%, it could be completely free for everyone.</p>
<p>Many schools decide who to admit and who not to admit based on ability to pay. If they are interested in having a good yield, this only makes sense. As someone else pointed out, it also makes sense if they want to have better graduation rates. Colleges have niches they fill. Some are primarily interested in educating kids who don’t have as good of a chance. THose get dvided by schools that recruit low income, kids who need a second chance with academics, and kids who need a hand because of learning disabilities. Then there are schools who specialize in certain fields. There are schools that specifically want to get the absolute top students. There are schools that are interested in getting highly creative students, or students who value service. ALthough these colleges don’t get mentioned as much as Ivies and top twenty here, many colleges can only afford to take a certain amount of financially needy students. There was a big article in the WP two weeks ago about how one college, Ursinus, decided to devote more money to merit scholarships and less to FA. REgardless of what schools publicly announce, how they select students often changes based on their financial capabilities and goals. So one year, when the budget is flush, the 32 scoring by from South Central LA gets in and another year when the stock market is down, it is the 32 scoring boy from McLean VA. Even if they claim they are need blind, the certainly can guess that a Compton HIgh Student is likely to need lots of aid and a Langley High student is not.</p>
<p>Which schools would lose, though? I have no doubt that if (say) the top 20 unis were to announce tomorrow that they were going full-pay only, they’d still have more than enough full-pay applicants to fill their classes.</p>
<p>Remember - these schools may say that roughly half of the school is on some kind of aid - but that’s who they chose to admit. If they really wanted to tip the scale the other way, they could, and they wouldn’t be underenrolled.</p>
<p>One changes the stakes and the others have to follow. They can change the stakes by offering more aid to the middle and upper middle class (as H has done) … or they could change the stakes by taking aid away entirely. And I don’t think they would drop from the top of the rankings heaps as a result.</p>
<p>There are schools that are as expensive as the ivies( as an example)- but don’t offer to meet 100% need based aid & are need aware- they also are less prestigious/more provincial than schools that only offer need based aid who have a broader draw- which is why they offer some merit aid- to get some of those students away from the 100% need schools.</p>
<p>But I assume most on CC are not interested in perceived prestige as a criteria for a school anyway- but consider the quality of faculty- etc.</p>