I've started threads on this before ... high endowment schools essentially have no tuition. They essentially charge what you can pay, even if that is nothing.
As noted below.
* 20% Harvard families has an annual income under $65,000 and pays nothing toward the cost of the student's education.
These statistics have been in other stories:
* 40% of the families with annual income under $150,000 and an average of $12,000 a year
* 40% of families making $150,000 and above pay from $12,000 to the list price of $41,000
(to be clear, we are talking about cutting tuition, not cheaps loan or special grants, it is like buying a car, haggling over the price with them.)
Question,
When will we see pressure "on down the line" to schools like MU?
If a kid that was accepted to Harvard (or Stanford or any other Ivy ... high endowment school) and also applied and was accepted to MU, would MU slash their tuition to lure them in? Would they offer free tuition to top kids from poor families like Harvard? Can MU do this without wrecking its budget? Harvard can because it has a $32 billion endowment. (I would also note that many other schools with large endowments do the same).
Is this the way to fix soaring tuition costs, study hard and go to school for less?
Yield remains high for Class of 2020
Fitzsimmons touts incoming College students as 'remarkable by any standard'
May 11, 2016
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/05/yield-remains-high-for-class-of-2020/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=hag&utm_content=haa_all_alumni_2016-05-12
Nearly 80 percent of applicants admitted to the Class of 2020 have chosen to enroll at Harvard College starting in August. This is the fourth year in a row that the yield on admitted students has been in the range of 80 percent, a level last reached more than four decades ago in 1969 with the Class of 1973.
"The Class of 2020 is remarkable by any standard," said William R. Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid. "These students promise to be the kinds of citizens and citizen leaders who will make a critical difference to the nation and the world in the years ahead."
Harvard's wide-ranging financial aid program means that cost was no barrier to assembling such a strong class. More than half of the matriculating students will require need-based financial aid. "Many families face extremely challenging economic circumstances today, and it is central to Harvard's mission that our doors are open to excellent students from all economic backgrounds," said Fitzsimmons.
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.
This is like asking how Kentucky's recruiting philosophy will trickle down to a school like UW-GB: I suppose it is theoretically possible the two could be related in some fashion, but highly unlikely.
Percentage of students that Marquette loses to Harvard because of the financial aid package:
0.00%
This is simply price discrimination. Yes, Harvard has more resources to offer at different price points, but Marquette does this as well with the variety of scholarships offered.
Harvard won't get rid of tuition; it makes no sense. You price at what consumers are willing to pay.
Quote from: Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown on May 16, 2016, 09:11:24 PM
This is simply price discrimination. Yes, Harvard has more resources to offer at different price points, but Marquette does this as well with the variety of scholarships offered.
Harvard won't get rid of tuition; it makes no sense. You price at what consumers are willing to pay.
Actually, Marquette's financial aid packages can be pretty crappy compared to other schools. I have heard many stories of kids who really wanted to go to MU, but they were offered schollies of $5-$10K more a year at what are considered MU's "comps" - Loyola, SLU, etc.
My point is, that no one is going to choose Marquette over Harvard simply because Marquette matches Harvard's aid package. Let's be honest here - a Harvard sheepskin is considerably more valuable.
I'm with warriorchick on this one. No one is going to choose MU over Harvard but that's ok because there are probably only 5...maybe generously 10 other institutions tops that warrant comparable consideration.
Still, the point Heisenberg raises is an important one because Marquette's Yield (The % of accepted students that enroll) historically has only been about 14%. According to US News' 2014 Yield Data, that puts us near the bottom of National Universities but there are other well known schools (Fordham surprisingly being one of them) that are ranked even lower than us. The chart is below.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2016-01-25/national-universities-where-students-are-eager-to-enroll
Because so many students apply to MU as a safety when they're really hoping for Northwestern, Wash U, ND, U Rochester, etc. that's no surprise but what is a serious concern is because our yield rate is so low, MU has to accept basically 75% or more of its applicants just to ensure they'll meet their enrollment goal. I have serious concerns about that metric's impact on our ranking. They need to get it down to 50%.
US News claims acceptance rate is only 12.5% of the criteria used to determine national university ranking. Maybe so but given academics' peer perception of the school is the highest percentage at 22%, how much of that 22% is influenced by the acceptance rate. I suspect an awful lot.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-and-weights
I brought the embarrassing acceptance rate issue up a few weeks ago on this forum and the response from the community was that it doesn't matter and that it's not important. That's nonsense, and the university clearly agrees because MU's acceptance rate is so high, the administration refuses to even post it on the aspirational dashboard that they recently created to track the progress of the strategic plan. Every major metric used to evaluate colleges is on there except the acceptance rate. I personally raised this issue with the vice provost for strategic and academic planning via e-mail and she said whether or not to include it was a matter of considerable debate among the administration but they ultimately they decided not to.
Not sure more applicants and a lower acceptance rate will increase the yield but it certainly can't hurt. MU seems to talk a big game when they say they want to move up in the rankings but at the end of the day, they're unwilling to do what's necessary to get there. I'm not suggesting they should manipulate or falsify data but I don't see any harm in casting as wide a net as possible on the recruiting front. They hardly even recruit at public schools further than 100 miles from MKE. They pretty much only recruit at Catholic schools in the greater US. Huge mistake. I grew up in the Northeast and my public high school sends at least 2 or 3 kids to UW Mad every year. I'm the last person to even apply to MU from my high school, let alone attend, and I graduated from high school in the 80's. They think people are unwilling to travel but that too is nonsense. If it were true, how is it that my high school in New England sends 2-3 kids to Madison every year and they have been for 30 years! Wake up Marquette!
How do you keep track of where each and every student applies for the last 30 years?
This past year, Marquette has significantly changed the way they recruit students. They are now targeting kids who are more likely to choose Marquette, rather than throwing a really wide net We will see how that works out.
I never did understand why acceptance rate is considered such an important metric. There is so much more information available to a student, so they are way more aware of their chances of getting accepted. Why would they waste their time applying to a place where they know they won't get in?
Quote from: warriorchick on May 17, 2016, 06:22:27 AM
This past year, Marquette has significantly changed the way they recruit students. They are now targeting kids who are more likely to choose Marquette, rather than throwing a really wide net We will see how that works out.
I never did understand why acceptance rate is considered such an important metric. There is so much more information available to a student, so they are way more aware of their chances of getting accepted. Why would they waste their time applying to a place where they know they won't get in?
I don't know why your statement makes me think of this. I did a college fair for Marquette back in March. The rep from the school next to me said, "Wow! Yale has a table here? That's very rare. They don't usually staff high school fairs because they don't have to. Everyone know who they are."
Quote from: warriorchick on May 16, 2016, 08:59:28 PM
Percentage of students that Marquette loses to Harvard because of the financial aid package:
0.00%
Ok, I explained myself poorly. Let me try again ...
In 2005 Harvard essentially went to no tuition, pay what you can and the very Rich pay full list price of $41k. 65% of Harvard kids are paying less than list with 20% paying nothing.
This forced comparable schools to adopt the same policy. So these numbers can be found at Stanford, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Chicago, Columbia etc.
It is also affecting the next level of schools below that, Duke, Penn, Northwestern, Hopkins, WashU, Cornell, Dartmouth. They are cutting prices too. Just not as much as the levl above.
Finally, the next level is beginning to do it as well. Georgetown, ND, Carnegie Mellon, Rice USC.
My question is how far down will this go? Will this tuition cutting reach down to MU?
Second, question, can state schools do this. Can Wisconsin offer a top Illinois student a price cut? Or, are they limited to only Wisconsin kids? Can they do that anyway or being a public institution means they have to do it for everyone?
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 17, 2016, 07:24:23 AM
Ok, I explained myself poorly. Let me try again ...
In 2005 Harvard essentially went to no tuition, pay what you can and the very Rich pay full list price of $41k. 65% of Harvard kids are paying less than list with 20% paying nothing.
This forced comparable schools to adopt the same policy. So these numbers can be found at Stanford, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Chicago, Columbia etc.
It is also affecting the next level of schools below that, Duke, Penn, Northwestern, Hopkins, WashU, Cornell, Dartmouth. They are cutting prices too. Just not as much as the levl above.
Finally, the next level is beginning to do it as well. Georgetown, ND, Carnegie Mellon, Rice USC.
My question is how far down will this go? Will this tuition cutting reach down to MU?
Second, question, can state schools do this. Can Wisconsin offer a top Illinois student a price cut? Or, are they limited to only Wisconsin kids? Can they do that anyway or being a public institution means they have to do it for everyone?
I think it will take a while for that to trickle down to our comps. Most of them don't have the multi-billion dollar endowments that it would take to pull this off.
That's not to say they aren't trying. But when we have multi-page threads of alums bitching about getting asked for donations, it's an uphill battle.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 17, 2016, 07:24:23 AM
Ok, I explained myself poorly. Let me try again ...
In 2005 Harvard essentially went to no tuition, pay what you can and the very Rich pay full list price of $41k. 65% of Harvard kids are paying less than list with 20% paying nothing.
This forced comparable schools to adopt the same policy. So these numbers can be found at Stanford, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Chicago, Columbia etc.
It is also affecting the next level of schools below that, Duke, Penn, Northwestern, Hopkins, WashU, Cornell, Dartmouth. They are cutting prices too. Just not as much as the levl above.
Finally, the next level is beginning to do it as well. Georgetown, ND, Carnegie Mellon, Rice USC.
My question is how far down will this go? Will this tuition cutting reach down to MU?
Second, question, can state schools do this. Can Wisconsin offer a top Illinois student a price cut? Or, are they limited to only Wisconsin kids? Can they do that anyway or being a public institution means they have to do it for everyone?
No. Someone has to pay for the school operations. When MU or UW gets endowments like Harvard or even some of the other schools you listed, the tuition discounts will reflect it.
And that will happen ... never.
Harvard does what they can because a third of their budget is paid for from endowments.
Quote from: brandx on May 17, 2016, 08:13:59 AM
No. Someone has to pay for the school operations. When MU or UW gets endowments like Harvard or even some of the other schools you listed, the tuition discounts will reflect it.
And that will happen ... never.
Harvard does what they can because a third of their budget is paid for from endowments.
Don't disagree ....
So the best students not only get to go to better/best schools, but they also get to go to them cheaper than the next level down.
So they higher up the school you reach for, the cheaper they get.
Quote from: Disco Hippie on May 16, 2016, 11:30:41 PM
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-and-weights
I brought the embarrassing acceptance rate issue up a few weeks ago on this forum and the response from the community was that it doesn't matter and that it's not important. That's nonsense, and the university clearly agrees because MU's acceptance rate is so high, the administration refuses to even post it on the aspirational dashboard that they recently created to track the progress of the strategic plan. Every major metric used to evaluate colleges is on there except the acceptance rate. I personally raised this issue with the vice provost for strategic and academic planning via e-mail and she said whether or not to include it was a matter of considerable debate among the administration but they ultimately they decided not to.
Acceptance rate isn't important unless you are chasing artificial rankings put out by a weekly magazine. If you determine that chasing such rankings is worthwhile, then may God have mercy on your soul and go ahead. Enjoy judging yourself against others with an easily manipulated statistic that some magazine somewhere suggested was important. If Marquette has decided to go down that route, it is really a shame.
Quote from: Disco Hippie on May 16, 2016, 11:30:41 PM
Not sure more applicants and a lower acceptance rate will increase the yield but it certainly can't hurt. MU seems to talk a big game when they say they want to move up in the rankings but at the end of the day, they're unwilling to do what's necessary to get there. I'm not suggesting they should manipulate or falsify data but I don't see any harm in casting as wide a net as possible on the recruiting front. They hardly even recruit at public schools further than 100 miles from MKE. They pretty much only recruit at Catholic schools in the greater US. Huge mistake. I grew up in the Northeast and my public high school sends at least 2 or 3 kids to UW Mad every year. I'm the last person to even apply to MU from my high school, let alone attend, and I graduated from high school in the 80's. They think people are unwilling to travel but that too is nonsense. If it were true, how is it that my high school in New England sends 2-3 kids to Madison every year and they have been for 30 years! Wake up Marquette!
You really think that recruiting public high schools in the northeast is a viable strategy? I can understand recruiting at Catholic high schools in that area and nationwide, but they have to concentrate their resources where they are going to get the greatest return. Wisconsin, Chicagoland, Twin Cities, St. Louis, etc. is where most of its students come from. Being more competitive in those markets is going to serve Marquette much better than chasing down students out east that are looking at dozens of other institutions.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 17, 2016, 08:33:32 AM
Don't disagree ....
So the best students not only get to go to better/best schools, but they also get to go to them cheaper than the next level down.
So they higher up the school you reach for, the cheaper they get.
I learned this when applying to law school, but prospective students need to think of themselves as selling a product: themselves. There are certain characteristics of their application that make them either more or less valuable to the schools evaluating them: GPA, ACT/SAT score, diversity status, being from South Dakota, etc. The more attractive their characteristics, the more they can demand from schools in the form of financial aid.
The best students get the best financial aid packages because they have the most to offer schools, so schools have to compete to attract them. It isn't a function of the schools getting cheaper the higher you reach, its that the applicants applying to those schools have more bargaining power and the schools have the resources to aggressively compete with one another on tuition.
Quote from: Ellenson Guerrero on May 17, 2016, 08:56:58 AM
I learned this when applying to law school, but prospective students need to think of themselves as selling a product: themselves. There are certain characteristics of their application that make them either more or less valuable to the schools evaluating them: GPA, ACT/SAT score, diversity status, being from South Dakota, etc. The more attractive their characteristics, the more they can demand from schools in the form of financial aid.
The best students get the best financial aid packages because they have the most to offer schools, so schools have to compete to attract them. It isn't a function of the schools getting cheaper the higher you reach, its that the applicants applying to those schools have more bargaining power and the schools have the resources to aggressively compete with one another on tuition.
I want to be clear as I think these are two different things.
Most schools have grant and other aid programs. So everyone pays the list price but they have a separate pool of money to hand out in aid to attend their school. Yes, this aid is determined by merit. But it is usually a binary decision. You either get it or you do not and the amount is fixed.
What Harvard started, and other
large endowment schools have followed, is when they accept a kid, they go after that kid to do whatever it takes to get them to enroll. So the school will haggle on the tuition price like you would with a car salesman (yes the parents have to provide financial information). In fact some have argued that "tuition" might be done away. Instead everyone offers a tax deductible donation every year.
Again I think these are two different ways of doing it.
So is the Harvard/large endowment model the leading edge of that is coming to all schools or will it remain unique to them.
---------------
Side note, since the large endowment schools went to this scheme, and since they offer it to everyone, they now have de-facto athletic scholarships. Many good athletes come from "poorer" families so now they can offer them free attendance without violating NCAA rules. Essentially an athletic scholarship.
In some sports (tennis, track, hockey) the Ivies are are competitive as any D1 school in the country. Why are they more competitive in revenue sports? Because you are still expected to be a student, still expected to go to class and still expected to graduate. So, many top athletes that do not think of school in this manner (going to class) still will not attend ivies even though their family does not have to pay.
My wife's niece is a high school senior at a private school in Mumbai, India that sends a significant percentage of students to the US each year for college. She's a U.S. citizen so she's eligible for aid but grew up in Mumbai and because she's travelling so far to begin with, she had no intention of going to school in WI because her grandparents live just outside of NYC. Still, she applied to MU as a favor to me, and was accepted. She applied to 12 schools in all, was accepted by 8, and waitlisted at 1 of them. Of the schools she was accepted to which included Syracuse, Temple, UMASS, St. Lawrence, Connecticut College and UCONN, among others, She received the most generous package from Marquette. Close to $15K. Syracuse offered virtually nothing despite the fact that her mom is an Alum, and keep in mind she would have been paying out of state tuition at the state schools she was considering so they wouldn't have been any less tuition wise. In the case of UMASS and UCONN, they were actually slightly more expensive than Marquette just by virtue of the fact that out of state tuition at Northeast state schools tend to be higher. Maybe not has high as Pvt schools in the Northeast, but higher than Pvt schools in Midwest like MU. She was waitlisted at Fordham which was her first choice, but they told her even if a space opened up, it was unlikely any aid would have been available at that time. She ultimately decided on UMASS, because it's closer to her family, and the package was very close to what MU offered. I don't have any clue how schools evaluate who gets what, but in this case, MU and UMASS were the most competitive and none of the other schools were even close.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 17, 2016, 10:31:10 AM
I want to be clear as I think these are two different things.
Most schools have grant and other aid programs. So everyone pays the list price but they have a separate pool of money to hand out in aid to attend their school. Yes, this aid is determined by merit. But it is usually a binary decision. You either get it or you do not and the amount is fixed.
What Harvard started, and other large endowment schools have followed, is when they accept a kid, they go after that kid to do whatever it takes to get them to enroll. So the school will haggle on the tuition price like you would with a car salesman (yes the parents have to provide financial information). In fact some have argued that "tuition" might be done away. Instead everyone offers a tax deductible donation every year.
Again I think these are two different ways of doing it.
So is the Harvard/large endowment model the leading edge of that is coming to all schools or will it remain unique to them.
I guess I don't see the distinction between offering grants and scholarships to students you want and haggling over the tuition to be paid. One is perhaps more direct, but at the end of the day it amounts to basically the same thing: some students pay more than others to go to the same school. Price discrimination has long been a part of universities' financial model.
My niece was wait listed two weeks ago to Harvard...if she is ultimately admitted she will go. Turned down by Stanford. I look forward to hearing about the tuition aspect for her.
Quote from: Disco Hippie on May 17, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
My wife's niece is a high school senior at a private school in Mumbai, India that sends a significant percentage of students to the US each year for college. She's a U.S. citizen so she's eligible for aid but grew up in Mumbai and because she's travelling so far to begin with, she had no intention of going to school in WI because her grandparents live just outside of NYC. Still, she applied to MU as a favor to me, and was accepted. She applied to 12 schools in all, was accepted by 8, and waitlisted at 1 of them. Of the schools she was accepted to which included Syracuse, Temple, UMASS, St. Lawrence, Connecticut College and UCONN, among others, She received the most generous package from Marquette. Close to $15K. Syracuse offered virtually nothing despite the fact that her mom is an Alum, and keep in mind she would have been paying out of state tuition at the state schools she was considering so they wouldn't have been any less tuition wise. In the case of UMASS and UCONN, they were actually slightly more expensive than Marquette just by virtue of the fact that out of state tuition at Northeast state schools tend to be higher. Maybe not has high as Pvt schools in the Northeast, but higher than Pvt schools in Midwest like MU. She was waitlisted at Fordham which was her first choice, but they told her even if a space opened up, it was unlikely any aid would have been available at that time. She ultimately decided on UMASS, because it's closer to her family, and the package was very close to what MU offered. I don't have any clue how schools evaluate who gets what, but in this case, MU and UMASS were the most competitive and none of the other schools were even close.
UConn cost is absolutely ridiculous. I believe next year, the
in-state tuition for UConn is rising again and supposed to be about $30k/yr.
It's also very hard to get into now as an in-state student.
I could see this model impacting state schools more than schools like Marquette. If a kid was smart enough to get accepted at Harvard, but couldn't afford it, he/she was probably going to the local state school.
I suppose it could even benefit MU. If super-smart poor kids are taking up more spots at Harvard, then the regular-smart rich kids that would have previously gone to Harvard are getting bumped down to other schools. Schools like MU might start seeing more qualified kids that can pay full tuition.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 17, 2016, 08:33:32 AM
Don't disagree ....
So the best students not only get to go to better/best schools, but they also get to go to them cheaper than the next level down.
So they higher up the school you reach for, the cheaper they get.
I'm not sure that you have realized it but you are hitting on one of the causes of income inequality....
Quote from: Disco Hippie on May 17, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
My wife's niece is a high school senior at a private school in Mumbai, India that sends a significant percentage of students to the US each year for college. She's a U.S. citizen so she's eligible for aid but grew up in Mumbai and because she's travelling so far to begin with, she had no intention of going to school in WI because her grandparents live just outside of NYC. Still, she applied to MU as a favor to me, and was accepted. She applied to 12 schools in all, was accepted by 8, and waitlisted at 1 of them. Of the schools she was accepted to which included Syracuse, Temple, UMASS, St. Lawrence, Connecticut College and UCONN, among others, She received the most generous package from Marquette. Close to $15K. Syracuse offered virtually nothing despite the fact that her mom is an Alum, and keep in mind she would have been paying out of state tuition at the state schools she was considering so they wouldn't have been any less tuition wise. In the case of UMASS and UCONN, they were actually slightly more expensive than Marquette just by virtue of the fact that out of state tuition at Northeast state schools tend to be higher. Maybe not has high as Pvt schools in the Northeast, but higher than Pvt schools in Midwest like MU. She was waitlisted at Fordham which was her first choice, but they told her even if a space opened up, it was unlikely any aid would have been available at that time. She ultimately decided on UMASS, because it's closer to her family, and the package was very close to what MU offered. I don't have any clue how schools evaluate who gets what, but in this case, MU and UMASS were the most competitive and none of the other schools were even close.
Your niece had a very unusual mix of schools she applied to. I am sure it was unique among Marquette applicants. Kids that apply to Marquette typically apply to other private Midwest Universities and perhaps one or two state schools. The schools like Loyola, DePaul, Dayton, and SLU are who Marquette has trouble competing with scholarship-wise.
And your niece's situation is a perfect example of why schools like Marquette have such a low yield rate. She applied to a dozen schools and got accepted to 8 of them. If every kid does that, then anything better than a 12 1/2% yield rate is a statistical win for Marquette.
Al
Quote from: warriorchick on May 17, 2016, 01:18:40 PM
Your niece had a very unusual mix of schools she applied to. I am sure it was unique among Marquette applicants. Kids that apply to Marquette typically apply to other private Midwest Universities and perhaps one or two state schools. The schools like Loyola, DePaul, Dayton, and SLU are who Marquette has trouble competing with scholarship-wise.
And your niece's situation is a perfect example of why schools like Marquette have such a low yield rate. She applied to a dozen schools and got accepted to 8 of them. If every kid does that, then anything better than a 12 1/2% yield rate is a statistical win for Marquette.
Could that be because MU has slightly higher avg test scores and GPA's than those other Midwest schools you mentioned so they're more willing to pony up $$ for those students? Just like Fordham/Syracuse has slightly higher averages than Marquette therefore Marquette was more willing to pony up more $$ for my wife's niece?
On another note, Am I the only one that thinks the geographic diversity of the student body is very important? I know they get kids from everywhere but at the end of the day, 70% of the students are from IL or WI. I've never thought that was a good thing. I hate how MU always wants to put themselves in the same box and compare themselves to the same schools. Go after Nova Georgetown Fordham and Santa Clara applicants too! The admin has this very parochial Midwestern attitude and it pisses me off because unlike the administration, I don't believe MU can't compete with those schools. They absolutely can, they just choose not too.
Quote from: Disco Hippie on May 17, 2016, 06:43:34 PM
Quote from: warriorchick on May 17, 2016, 01:18:40 PM
Your niece had a very unusual mix of schools she applied to. I am sure it was unique among Marquette applicants. Kids that apply to Marquette typically apply to other private Midwest Universities and perhaps one or two state schools. The schools like Loyola, DePaul, Dayton, and SLU are who Marquette has trouble competing with scholarship-wise.
And your niece's situation is a perfect example of why schools like Marquette have such a low yield rate. She applied to a dozen schools and got accepted to 8 of them. If every kid does that, then anything better than a 12 1/2% yield rate is a statistical win for Marquette.
Could that be because MU has slightly higher avg test scores and GPA's than those other Midwest schools you mentioned so they're more willing to pony up $$ for those students? Just like Fordham/Syracuse has slightly higher averages than Marquette therefore Marquette was more willing to pony up more $$ for my wife's niece?
On another note, Am I the only one that thinks the geographic diversity of the student body is very important? I know they get kids from everywhere but at the end of the day, 70% of the students are from IL or WI. I've never thought that was a good thing. I hate how MU always wants to put themselves in the same box and compare themselves to the same schools. Go after Nova Georgetown Fordham and Santa Clara applicants too! The admin has this very parochial Midwestern attitude and it pisses me off because unlike the administration, I don't believe MU can't compete with those schools. They absolutely can, they just choose not too.
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.
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.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 17, 2016, 06:51:37 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 20, 2016, 07:23:58 AM
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%.
Quote from: Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown on May 20, 2016, 04:02:47 PM
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.
Quote from: warriorchick on May 16, 2016, 08:59:28 PM
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?
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 20, 2016, 04:35:23 PM
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?
Quote from: Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown on May 21, 2016, 07:50:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 21, 2016, 10:37:40 AM
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?
Quote from: Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown on May 21, 2016, 12:33:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 21, 2016, 04:10:14 PM
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?
Quote from: StillAWarrior on May 21, 2016, 08:35:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Heisenberg on May 22, 2016, 04:25:43 AM
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.