Harvard Gazette: Yield remains high for Class of 2020

[GGGG]

Any school needs to know where best to deploy its resources. Diversity of all kinds is important. Including geographic. But what is the cost compared to the potential benefit?  It doesn't have much to do with being "parochial," but what are the best ways possible to run the university given its limitations.

[Disco Hippie]

Actually, Marquette is trying very hard to geographically diversify.  The main reason is that the number of college-age students in the upper Midwest is shrinking, while it is growing in the West and South.

Good!  No offense to Midwesterners who are admittedly a much nicer lot than your garden variety northeastern douchbag or douchebagette, but the more the merrier from everywhere the better.

[Tugg Speedman]

If this happens (zero tuition for all at Harvard), to restate above, Harvard's peers (Princeton, Yale, Columbia, MIT, Chicago, Stanford) will probably match it.

Then the next level (Northwestern, Hopkins, Duke, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown) either go to zero or severally take down their tuition.

The next level (WashU, Georgetown, ND, USC) follow them lower, to a lesser degree.

Two questions ....

1) Do you agree with the trickle down idea above?  Or, can Harvard, and maybe its peers at most, remain the unique with free tuition?

2) Does free or severally cut tuition. go down far enough to reach MU, or affect most national universities in the US (top 200 to 300).  Can public universities go to free tuition for all?  Or will tight state budgets make it politically difficult?

Ralph Nader declares war on Harvard
The famed gadfly is running for the university's board, demanding transparency in admissions.
By Josh Gerstein    05/19/16 07:37 PM EDT

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ralph-nader-harvard-admissions-223389

At 82, Ralph Nader is still doing two things he’s got some experience at: running for office and making liberals hopping mad.

This time, he’s not seeking the presidency, but a post that could help shape the nation’s elite: a seat on Harvard University’s board of overseers.

What’s infuriating many on the left isn’t that Nader is trying to bring his trouble-making to America’s most famous institution of higher education, but the company he’s keeping in his upstart bid. Several of the other candidates on the protest slate he’s joined are outspoken critics of affirmative action.

The slate is the brainchild of Ron Unz, a Harvard graduate and libertarian businessman who’s also making a longshot bid as a Republican for the California Senate seat of the retiring Barbara Boxer. Under the banner “Free Harvard, Fair Harvard,” the five-person group is pushing to cut Harvard’s tuition to zero for all undergraduates and to increase transparency about the admissions process.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

If this happens (zero tuition for all at Harvard), to restate above, Harvard's peers (Princeton, Yale, Columbia, MIT, Chicago, Stanford) will probably match it.

Then the next level (Northwestern, Hopkins, Duke, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown) either go to zero or severally take down their tuition.

The next level (WashU, Georgetown, ND, USC) follow them lower, to a lesser degree.

Assuming you have not taken an economics class? This is an absolute batcrap crazy assumption. Harvard doesn't have unlimited quantity. They take in what, 1,675 per year. That doesn't dent demand for a top university like UofC, Stanford, etc at current tuition levels.

You're assuming that these institutions would no longer be able to find qualified students to fill their slots because one school offers free tuition for 6,700. On what planet does that make sense?

By that logic, I'll give away 5 free iPhone 6S's.... therefore Apple will no longer have pricing power and have to give theirs away for free as well.

For reference: There are 20.2 million enrolled college students in the US. Harvard has 6,700 undergrads. That's 0.03%.

[Tugg Speedman]

Assuming you have not taken an economics class? This is an absolute batcrap crazy assumption. Harvard doesn't have unlimited quantity. They take in what, 1,675 per year. That doesn't dent demand for a top university like UofC, Stanford, etc at current tuition levels.

You're assuming that these institutions would no longer be able to find qualified students to fill their slots because one school offers free tuition for 6,700. On what planet does that make sense?

By that logic, I'll give away 5 free iPhone 6S's.... therefore Apple will no longer have pricing power and have to give theirs away for free as well.

For reference: There are 20.2 million enrolled college students in the US. Harvard has 6,700 undergrads. That's 0.03%.

Please re-read the question, it is about who follows and how far down does it go.  I limited the universe to the top 200 to 300 national universities (MU is about 70 to 80 on that list).

And you want a historical example ... From 1626 (the founding of Harvard) to 1945, how did one go to Harvard?  Answer, show up and pay for the class.  This applied to every university in the country.

Then with the end of the WW2 and the GI Bill, universities were overwhelmed with students.  Most were answering this by raising the cost (more demand, fixed supply = higher prices).  Harvard tried something different, they kept their prices unchanged and instituted an admission standard.  Most thought this was a gimmick and would not last.  Soon their peers followed and we now have most kids spending all their high school years preparing to fill out a college application.


Footnote
The admission standard also changed something else.  From 1626 to 1945 you could go to any college you wanted so long as your check cleared.  But Freshman year was brutal and the drop out rate was very high.  In other words, getting in was easy, staying in was hard.

Today, getting in is hard.  But once in, the drop pout rate is nearly zero.  So getting in is hard and staying in is easy.

[4everwarriors]

Percentage of students that Marquette loses to Harvard because of the financial aid package:


0.00%

Better question would be, how many students apply ta boat MU and Harvard? Pretty sure dat would be pretty close ta zero, hey?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Please re-read the question, it is about who follows and how far down does it go.  I limited the universe to the top 200 to 300 national universities (MU is about 70 to 80 on that list).

And you want a historical example ... From 1626 (the founding of Harvard) to 1945, how did one go to Harvard?  Answer, show up and pay for the class.  This applied to every university in the country.

Then with the end of the WW2 and the GI Bill, universities were overwhelmed with students.  Most were answering this by raising the cost (more demand, fixed supply = higher prices).  Harvard tried something different, they kept their prices unchanged and instituted an admission standard.  Most thought this was a gimmick and would not last.  Soon their peers followed and we now have most kids spending all their high school years preparing to fill out a college application.


Footnote
The admission standard also changed something else.  From 1626 to 1945 you could go to any college you wanted so long as your check cleared.  But Freshman year was brutal and the drop out rate was very high.  In other words, getting in was easy, staying in was hard.

Today, getting in is hard.  But once in, the drop pout rate is nearly zero.  So getting in is hard and staying in is easy.

My answer remains: nobody follows and it goes zero universities down.

I'll go farther and say Harvard will not eliminate tuition.

Backup is basic economic principles of pricing and availability of substitutes.

The GI bill example is one where students are subsidized, prices (and, therefore, supply) rise to reflect that.

If Harvard eliminates tuition, it's akin to a price ceiling, where more is demanded of a good than is supplied. This is inefficient and unintelligent to do, but only applies to Harvard.

Give me a run down on how Princeton would benefit economically by matching this move, should Harvard eliminate tuition?

[Tugg Speedman]

My answer remains: nobody follows and it goes zero universities down.

I'll go farther and say Harvard will not eliminate tuition.

Backup is basic economic principles of pricing and availability of substitutes.

The GI bill example is one where students are subsidized, prices (and, therefore, supply) rise to reflect that.

If Harvard eliminates tuition, it's akin to a price ceiling, where more is demanded of a good than is supplied. This is inefficient and unintelligent to do, but only applies to Harvard.

Give me a run down on how Princeton would benefit economically by matching this move, should Harvard eliminate tuition?

From the first post above ...

Since launching the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative in 2005, Harvard has awarded $1.5 billion in financial aid to undergraduates. One in five Harvard families has an annual income under $65,000 and pays nothing toward the cost of the student’s education. All students can graduate debt-free, as Harvard meets all demonstrated need and never requires students to take out loans to cover the cost of their education.

Harvard went first and all their peers (Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, Yale, Chicago, MIT) have followed this.  The next level down (Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn, Hopkins, Northwestern) are adopting a watered down version of this this.

So in 2005 Harvard went part way toward eliminating tuition and its peers followed.  So if they go all the way to no tuition (and I agree with you it is not a sure thing they will anytime soon), you should expect their peers to follow again.

Again Harvard went to an admission standard after WW2, their peers followed and now it is the standard at all universities.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

From the first post above ...

Since launching the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative in 2005, Harvard has awarded $1.5 billion in financial aid to undergraduates. One in five Harvard families has an annual income under $65,000 and pays nothing toward the cost of the student’s education. All students can graduate debt-free, as Harvard meets all demonstrated need and never requires students to take out loans to cover the cost of their education.

Harvard went first and all their peers (Princeton, Stanford, Columbia, Yale, Chicago, MIT) have followed this.  The next level down (Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn, Hopkins, Northwestern) are adopting a watered down version of this this.

So in 2005 Harvard went part way toward eliminating tuition and its peers followed.  So if they go all the way to no tuition (and I agree with you it is not a sure thing they will anytime soon), you should expect their peers to follow again.

Again Harvard went to an admission standard after WW2, their peers followed and now it is the standard at all universities.

Eliminating tuition is different from price discrimination in the form of need-based scholarships.

A question on your premise: are you saying that Harvard was the first to offer need-based scholarships, and that the other schools you mentioned after were the second, third, etc?

Need-based scholarships allow a competitive advantage to each university by pricing to an individual student's willingness to pay. Because of this they can admit the best fit not only from those who are wealthy (a small part of the population) but also those lower on the income scale. Without need-based scholarship, a kid whose parents are broke could never attend.

I'd commend other schools in following this idea to boost the quality of their student bodies.

Eliminating tuition altogether achieves none of these goals. What is the benefit to me (if I am Princeton) to eliminating tuition? The cost of I don't?

[Tugg Speedman]

Eliminating tuition is different from price discrimination in the form of need-based scholarships.

A question on your premise: are you saying that Harvard was the first to offer need-based scholarships, and that the other schools you mentioned after were the second, third, etc?

Need-based scholarships allow a competitive advantage to each university by pricing to an individual student's willingness to pay. Because of this they can admit the best fit not only from those who are wealthy (a small part of the population) but also those lower on the income scale. Without need-based scholarship, a kid whose parents are broke could never attend.

I'd commend other schools in following this idea to boost the quality of their student bodies.

Eliminating tuition altogether achieves none of these goals. What is the benefit to me (if I am Princeton) to eliminating tuition? The cost of I don't?

Yes it is about increasing the quality of a student that attends.  If Harvard goes to no tuition (and they have the financial ability to do it), I'll take it as a sign that they think it will further increase the quality of their students.  If this is the case, then Princeton would be at a disadvantage if they do not.

Again, not a done deal they will go to no tuition.  But, as the story above says, since 2005 no Harvard undergraduate has graduated with any student debt.  And since the did this, their yield shot up to a 50 year high of 80+%.

Price matters, even at Harvard.

[StillAWarrior]

But, as the story above says, since 2005 no Harvard undergraduate has graduated with any student debt.

I don't believe this for a second. Sounds great for marketing, but I can't imagine it's true. Harvard tells you how much you can afford to pay, and then offers aid for the rest. Suffice it to say we had a fairly significant difference of opinion on what we could afford to pay. They offered more need-bases aid than anyone else offered us, but we'd still have needed to take out a loan.

Just because Harvard believes people won't need to take out loans doesn't mean they aren't. You don't honestly believe that no Harvard students have taken any loans in the last 11 years, do you?

[Tugg Speedman]

I don't believe this for a second. Sounds great for marketing, but I can't imagine it's true. Harvard tells you how much you can afford to pay, and then offers aid for the rest. Suffice it to say we had a fairly significant difference of opinion on what we could afford to pay. They offered more need-bases aid than anyone else offered us, but we'd still have needed to take out a loan.

Just because Harvard believes people won't need to take out loans doesn't mean they aren't. You don't honestly believe that no Harvard students have taken any loans in the last 11 years, do you?

Since I'm paying for a kid at Harvard right now, I see it up close and personal.  The answer is yes.  My kids roommate pays nothing, even gets Harvard to buy them a plane ticket home for Christmas and Summers.

And my kids roommate is a math wiz, so they had the option of a lot of top schools.  UCLA or Berkeley would have been their preferred choice.  Since they could not go for free to either, this California kid is at Harvard.  (Note, they were wait listed at Stanford and did not get in).  So that is one example where cutting tuition made the difference.

------

Havard has a $33 billion endowment, they have the money to cut tuition to the point that no one graduates in debt.  MU, with a $500 million endowment, is a different story.

[StillAWarrior]

Since I'm paying for a kid at Harvard right now, I see it up close and personal.  The answer is yes.  My kids roommate pays nothing, even gets Harvard to buy them a plane ticket home for Christmas and Summers.

And my kids roommate is a math wiz, so they had the option of a lot of top schools.  UCLA or Berkeley would have been their preferred choice.  Since they could not go for free to either, this California kid is at Harvard.  (Note, they were wait listed at Stanford and did not get in).  So that is one example where cutting tuition made the difference.

------

Havard has a $33 billion endowment, they have the money to cut tuition to the point that no one graduates in debt.  MU, with a $500 million endowment, is a different story.

I remain skeptical.  I believe Harvard meets all "demonstrated need."  But I simply do not believe that over the last 11 years not a single Harvard student (or parent) took out a loan to pay for it.  Your anecdotal example of two does not change my mind on that.

What it boils down to is that Harvard offers a financial aid award based upon what they believe a student/family can afford to pay.  This is based on a variety of factors, but most importantly family income.  Under Harvard's theory, if everyone lived within their means, then nobody would have to borrow.  But you may have heard that some people live way outside their means.  If someone is making $250,000, they will get some financial aid from Harvard (which is far more generous than virtually any other school would offer).  If that same family has a Mercedes, a BMW, a fancy lake house with a boat and wave runners, a huge house, great vacations, credit card debt, etc., the financial aid offered by Harvard might not allow them to attend without incurring debt.  And appropriately so -- Harvard should not (and I'm certain does not) take into consideration families' "voluntary" spending.  I'll agree that in this case, Harvard might well meet the "demonstrated need," so the claim Harvard makes is true.  But that is very different than saying, "since 2005 no Harvard undergraduate has graduated with any student debt."

Putting things in less drastic terms that strike a little closer to home for me:  if a "large" family (at least by today's standards) chooses to spend money on tuition for private elementary and high school (clearly "voluntary" spending), Harvard's financial aid package might not be sufficient to cover everything without incurring some debt.  And that's entirely fair and appropriate.  If Harvard faces two families that are identical in all ways (e.g., income, size, etc.) except that one chooses to spend $25,000/year on elementary/HS tuition while the other sends its kids to public school, there is no reason that Harvard should offer more financial aid to the one spending money on private schools.

That doesn't mean that Harvard is not worth it; doesn't mean that Harvard is not extremely generous with its massive endowment; doesn't even contradict Harvard's claim that it meets all demonstrated financial need.  It just means that some people, I am certain, still borrow to attend Harvard for their own reasons.