<p>This deals with fin aid but could expand to anything college does.</p>
<p><a href=“The Invisible Force Behind College Admissions”>http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2014/07/30/the-invisible-force-behind-college-admissions/</a></p>
<p>Well, I’ve seen worse ideas. I can’t imagine the practical issues could ever be overcome, though. Most of the rich schools’ endowments is earmarked for a specific graduate school or program. You can’t just tithe it. I guess they’d have to do that out of tuition income.</p>
<p>Of course, this is just a relabeling of a tax. The usual way to redistribute the wealth of a rich organization is to tax it and then spend the money on public schools.</p>
<p>The following is the key part of the article, and is a very common situation. The article talks about enrollment management consultants hired by colleges to design their aid programs: </p>
<p>“Their formulas might show the benefits of giving four well-heeled applicants with high SAT scores a 10% discount from its $50,000 tuition–rather than give one high-achieving, lower-income applicant the $20,000 scholarship she needs. The award of an extra $5,000 to rich kids might provide an ego boost that moves the needle–and bring in four students sure to pay the remaining $45,000 each year. That same $20,000 generated an additional $150,000 in relatively stable net tuition revenue.”</p>
<p>Wow, this led me to some statistics I’d never seen before. About 8% of total endowment funds at all U.S. universities belong to Harvard. 20% belong to HYPS. Criminy. I knew they were rich, but I didn’t realize they represented that much of the total wealth.</p>
<p>@Hanna, you must not have noticed the B in front of the illions in their endowment numbers. The decline is steep at that end of the list.</p>
<p>The title of the thread is “Should rich schools be forced to help poor ones?”</p>
<p>Maybe we should be asking “Should taxpayers be forced to help the rich ones”? </p>
<p>^^ I wonder why taxpayers are forced to help any private school.</p>
<p>If the well endowed colleges chose to voluntarily “tithe” to a fund for lower income students to attend less selective colleges, then why not. For low income students who don’t have the stats for the highly selective and generous colleges, affordable options can be very limited. I also think that some of the colleges which are just a tier below the top could do more to raise their endowments so they could afford to admit, and meet the need for, lower income students. I’m thinking of some whose graduates make exceptional salaries upon graduation but don’t tend to give much, if anything, back. It seems they were less than thrilled with aspects of their experience. Those colleges and universities should care what their students have to say and try to improve. By caring and spending a little to make some changes, they could reap greatly from their alumni. They might also consider putting more emphasis on giving to the local community as students who give of their time and talents during college will most likely continue to do so after graduation. College shouldn’t be only about chasing high earnings. Maybe they should do studies on that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you really believe that they are not trying? Seriously?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, perhaps – and more likely – the families are just less well off to begin with in comparison with those that attend the highly selective schools.</p>
<p>I think the article presumes all kids should be in colleges- of any sort or level, regardless. I also think it misses various non-educational factors that attract kids to schools. Unfortunately, the appearance and certain amenities, are a factor in many kids’ choices. If this were just about an education and leg up on life, we could be going with cinder block buildings, rented space, etc- at lots of colleges, including H and S. Not just for poor kids, but for our own, too. Think about our kids’ reactions to different schools. </p>
<p>It’s a vicious cycle. Grads who are happy looking back on their college experience tend to give back. Give them more, on-campus, to attract them, in the first place, then make them happy, to possibly raise more, later. (It’s not just about wealthy donors. Since many foundation grants look at percentage of alum giving, even small checks matter.) Market awareness does lead to better dorms, more clubs and sports, greener grass, air conditioning, all that modern technology at their bedsides, etc. Even some of the better trade techs are now mimicking a “college experience.” It costs. </p>
<h1>9 I do find it strange that the trend is to market college as an overall “experience” rather than as strictly a time of learning.</h1>
<p>Kids seem to view it as almost as a chance for a 4 year land cruise / spa.
I compare it to the kind of barebones books/classes/projects that was the norm back when I went to college overseas. And the comparisons between colleges boiled down to “what opportunities will be open to me after I graduate from here?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d love to see some research on this, after adjusting for family SES of the entering Frosh.</p>
<p>Me too. because I know a lot of families who feel they are paying way to much and have no clue how the heck they are going to pay back their loans. Giving back has never come up.</p>
<p>Obviously, we aren’t talking minute details; breaking this down to SES goes exceptionally far, imo. Point isn’t to somehow gravitate another thread to who “takes” more from the college. Or who perceives they already gave the max. I wrote a small check for the finaid fund, out of gratitude. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An interesting concept that is supposed to be a solution to a problem Maguire helped created. Isn’t that, in a nutshell, what consultants do? Then, after creating an even bigger mess, they can rinse and repeat and come up with new twists. </p>
<p>Of course, this is nothing new as the “solution” borrows a page from the geniuses in Mass who wanted to force Harvard to share its wealth with its poorer counterparts! </p>
<p>Would attaching more wagons to the few locomotives that are financially viable solve the financial crisis that is looming? At best, it would be a bandaid applied to a wooden leg! The real solution is none other to recognize that we have an abundance of colleges that do not deserve to exist and an abundance of schools that only know how to spend more to yield less – just as our wonderful model of public education. </p>
<p>Has one ever thought that reducing the length of our “lite” degrees by one or two years might reduce the net costs of most families? Would it take much efforts to analyze what the Bologna initiative did for Europe when it changed to a 3+2 system? Of course, our academic leaders have still to evaluate why the foreign K-12 works so much better than ours at a fraction of the cost. </p>
<p>How about reinforcing the links between high schools and community colleges in a way that a 13th year of HS might yield similar results? After all, most high school kids find it relatively easy to ace the community college classes. </p>
<p>All in all, there are plenty of solutions that would made the socialistic confiscation model a ridiculous proposal, For starters, colleges complain that they HAVE to spend more and more on amenities such as rock climbing walls and 24/7 entertainment and add more staff to supervise the country club lifestyles of students. Parents, in turn, complain that the cost increase are running wild. A the vicious circle continues! In the meantime, solutions that would REDUCE the amounts that can be borrowed are thrown away as heresy. </p>
<p>What is needed is to come to terms that we need a LOT fewer mediocre schools. And shorter and more pragmatic programs for the majority of our students. The problem is that the entire education system has never been as worried about its “customers” than it has about its service providers. Self-preservation and personal interests are the main drivers behind the expansion and growth of the cost of education. </p>
<p>PS Interested parties should google Robin Hood plan in Texas. A redistribution program that had “unexpected” results. While advanced programs and labs were closed in the high rent districts, the poorer schools immediately started building fancy entertainment and athletic facilities. Rich schools had to curtail a number of athletic programs to help poorer districts build wasteful monuments. One needs to remember how schools react when getting “extra” funds. Look at the outcome of the Proculus plans for education. </p>
<p>I think we’re going OT, but since it’s interesting:
One development advisory group: “Positive student experience is key (especially with growing debt/student loans). Student affairs/student activities/academic advising.”</p>
<p>Then this, which is from another: “A quick glance at the Top 50 schools in alumni donations shows those with high alumni donation rates are also well loved by their alumni and rank high on the lists of many other key attributes” and “Simply put, for many graduates their college experience is an important part of their identity, and the higher the regard they have for their college, the more likely they are to donate to it.”
<a href=“https://www.alumnifactor.com/node/5854”>https://www.alumnifactor.com/node/5854</a></p>
<p>It’s all more layered than suggesting the H development machine should tithe. </p>
<p>your post is correlation enough and clearly supports my point, lf:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s look at the facts: small private colleges – heck nearly all private colleges – attract wealthy students. Many private colleges are 70% full pay, putting their students in the top 5-10% of income in the US. I still claim that it is much easier to give a small check or any check when your 'rents have plenty of wealth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But on average, students at public colleges are much less wealth than those that attend private colleges. To ignore that fact is silly, IMO.</p>
<p>I’m actually leaning to xiggi here, without some of the bite. What is needed is to come to terms that we need a LOT fewer mediocre schools. And shorter and more pragmatic programs for the majority of our students. I don’t believe the sole purpose of higher ed is professional training. But we have to face that many kids (including some CC children) are not at college to hone their intellects. Personally, I find it ridiculous to go to college for a trade major (or some professional majors,) when a good focused training program would do it, for lower cost. </p>
<p>Just look at our own kids’ college searches. They complain about X’s dorms and Y’s crappy football team or the corner of town Z is located in. I advocate they check dept strengths and get back the written equivalent of the glassy stare. This is one of those issues where you need to see your own role in pushing high cost higher ed, with the risk the kid doesn’t come out with higher intellectual depth and breadth.</p>
<p>students at public colleges are much less wealth than those that attend private colleges but we were talking about outcomes. Not student giving, but alums and the resulting development funds. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, the bite might come from seeing too many of my “more subtle” posts being misunderstood or starting an endless cycle of strawmen argumentation. </p>
<p>To be clear, having fewer schools that offer generic degrees of dubious value to an unmotivated class of students does not mean that a non-professional and intellectual (humm, humm) education is diminished. </p>
<p>One of the saddest part of our system is the combination of high dropout rates in high schools and the low value of the education imparted to students who never dreamed nor wanted a so-called prestigious degree. We have plenty of schools, including in the non-profit area, that solely survive by selling courses to students who are convinced to milk their federal grants or borrow themselves in a hole. In itself that is not as a big of a problem as the fact that the degree is all but worthless in terms of marketable skills. </p>
<p>While our obsession with self-esteem makes us want to see everyone graduating from a four years colleges, the reality is that it hardly responds to the needs of our society, and especially not the capitalistic one we have. </p>
<p>Currently, too many students are simply bored to death in high school and only go through the motions until leaving when they pass the age limits. Those kids will never pursue a degree in Russian Lit or aspire to play ballerina in a fancy college. They have pressing issues including having to support families with their daily struggles. </p>
<p>Such students would be much better served with dedicated programs that combine a vocational education with a basic one. Our model of one size fits all is a collosal failure at the level of the bottom deciles. And it does not get much better for the ones who survive the HS and enter some of those glorified academic factories. </p>
<p>Most of the people who spend time on this forum understand that having solely pre-professional programs is not the solution nor beneficial. We have a vast range of students and unfortunately our “system” does not work very well and has never responded well to throwing more money at it. Making more money available will not help the targets: the students! It will simply create more infrastructure of the wasteful nature. </p>
<p>Do we really believe that Walmart needs more clercks with a degree from an obcure state school? Does Starbucks need more baristas who can quote Bill Ayers but can’t give your change back without a calculator? </p>
<p>Again, we need fewer --a lot fewer-- four years schools and plenty of ones that focus on a simpler program of education that actually answers to needs. Perhaps, what the community colleges were meant to be! </p>
<p>Food for thoughts? There are recent articles about this outfit in San Francisco: hack-reactor-is-launching-an-online-coding-bootcamp-but-you-still-need-to-quit-life-to-do-it and <a href=“Inside Hack Reactor, The Coding Bootcamp That Wants To Be The CS Degree Of The Future | TechCrunch”>http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/02/hack-reactor-coding-bootcamp/</a></p>
<p>Some compare the cost of the program to one semester at Cornell.</p>
<p>The company claims to have a 99 percent placement at salaries at around 100,000! What should a kid who wrote 3 apps while in high school do … a couple of semesters at a local school or borrow the money to attend such “school.” </p>
<p>I am not sure what I would say! </p>
<p>Yes, Robin Hood came to mind as soon as I saw the thread title. </p>