I wonder what the distribution of parental income is of the students at Rice that they can offer such generous grants. Even with a household income between $130-200k, they're offering at least half off tuition. An income of $200k+ is well over the 90th percentile of households.
It's worth pointing out that tuition is not necessarily the main source of income for a school, especially a well-established prestigious one. At my college, which is less than 75 years old, the number cited to me was that tuition covered only 40% of the college's cost of providing an education. Endownments, grants, foundations, and alumni donations accounts for a lot. I'm not super familiar with Rice, but I would imagine it has a decent endowment and access to other funding sources.
Like most top universities Rice has a large endowment. It's upwards of $5 billion in their case. If we take a sub market interest rate of 5% that's $250 million a year. Their entire undergrad body is 4k. That's $62,500 per student per year on a conservative return rate. No top universities actually need tuition anymore, but even top universities are increasingly being run as businesses with growth in 'revenue' seen as a positive in and of itself, necessity aside.
And in this case, they'll likely see major returns on it anyhow. Come donation time, I expect those graduates who were able to find a better place in life thanks to a voluntarily free education are going to be quite quick to open their wallets especially knowing that those donations will in turn go to productively helping the next generation of graduates going through the same cycle.
Why does seemingly every university rolling out these sorts of plans set hard cutoffs instead using a simple equation for doling out aid? Under the current plan, if your family makes $130,000/year, you go for free. But if you make $130,001/year, you pay thousands? It's so absurd.
> Another part of the program will help students whose family income surpasses the maximum: If their family's income is
between $130,000 and $200,000, they can still get grants covering at least half of their tuition.
Presumably there're more nuanced factors to consider for families with incomes between $130k and $200k beyond what can be expressed by a simple equation.
> But if you make $130,001/year, you pay thousands?
No. From the article:
> Another part of the program will help students whose family income surpasses the maximum: If their family's income is between $130,000 and $200,000, they can still get grants covering at least half of their tuition.
When there are reports about these programs, they only talk about income. The Rice site doesn't mention this either, but do they only look at income and not savings that families might have?
FWIW, I took a game programming MOOC from Rice. (I knew nothing of game programming going in.) It turned out to be a great experience, I really enjoyed it.
Besides access to education, is there much that can lift the quality of life for generations than meaningfully transferable education to a career path.
Having access to meaningful, transferable and applicable education (one that can be equally applied without a huge saddle of student debt) is a life changer, less so for those who already enjoy privilege and access to opportunity.
A huge problem I find with financial aid policy at many educational institutions, from elementary school all the way to university, is that the aid is often cut off at a specific threshold. For instance, if you are making $149,999 a year, you might qualify for $20k financial aid. But if you are making $150,000, you get none. So the two families with nearly identical situations are given grossly different treatment.
I don't understand why it's not a continuous scale that just approaches zero at a certain point, rather than these hard cut-offs.
edit: just saw that someone else made a similar comment. Mine is referring to education in general and not the article specifically, and in fact I have personally run into this situation. It seems that educational institutions would be by definition smarter about how they handle this.
But then you would end up with situations where people can borrow $500 which is useless. So they just allow it up to 150k and then make it a hard cut off as they feel that anybody who makes that much should absolutely be able to pay, and the administration costs of loaning < 10k could be a waste of time lets say.
This is interesting, and I think it may explain why so many members of my own family growing up (and now) have gone to University of California schools.
This article from the NYTimes really drove it home: Top Colleges are Cheaper Than You Think (Unless You're Rich).
The data is very interesting. They analysis breaks down family income into different socioeconomic categories, poor, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, affluent, and very affluent.
Well, it turns out the analysis is largely correct - there is substantial reduction in costs for all but the last two categories, "affluent" and "very affluent."
But look at the graph - it's fascinating. There's a meaningful break for every income, but very little difference between what the "Affluent" (family income $186k) and "Very Affluent" ($246k a year).
If you look at the graph, there's a big drop in what you pay below affluent, but "affluent" and "very affluent" pay roughly the same amount.
Here's the thing - that's true at publics as well as privates, but top publics max out at about half the rate of a private (the only one considered here is university of Virginia, UC schools are left off, not sure why). In other words, even if you pay full freight, there's a limiting factor to total costs. The pattern of what various economic groups pay as a percentage of max is the same for UVA and more expensive privates like the ivies, it's just that the whole thing is compressed into a 0-30K/year range instead of a 0-75k/range.
I think that this upper limit appeals immensely to people in the "affluent" but not "very affluent" category. Because they'll be paying "full costs", but are still limited in resources compared to the "very affluent" group, the actual upper limit ends up mattering a great deal.
I grew up in that economic band (affluent but not very affluent), and want to be sure I'm clear on this, "Affluent" as defined here is most definitely not an oppressive place to be from. Actually, it's harder now, in my day (grew up in the 1970s), the equivalent of affluent had no trouble buying a pleasant 3-4 br house in nice if unfashionable part of San Francisco (now: no)
But it does mean 3 kids at an ivy may be cost prohibitive, even for an "Affluent" family. UC schools (or UVA or others), on the other hand, have an upper limit (we were all in state) that makes it more possible. In short, state schools work as equalizers between the affluent and very affluent.
Merit is more probabilistic when socioeconomic factors depress performance.
You'll have a few outliers who kill it in secondary/middle/high school, but for the most part, people who are less well-to-do perform less effectively, and there's more and more research pointing to the likelihood that survival pressures negatively affect academic performance. Maybe not alone, but they're likely connected. (Edit: tylerho references this here—https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18018383)
> Why is financial aid tied to family income? Why isn't it granted in order of merit?
I grew up dirt poor. By the time I was in high school I had figured out I needed to do honors classes etc, but kids in families with resources started doing those classes in 7th or 8th grade. A doctor or lawyer understands the value of education for their 12 year old far more than a janitor. Many schools weigh GPAs more heavily for those in honors classes, so even if you're on even footing intellectually, you can't catch up. In other words, we're talking about the merit of the parents' involvement, not the merit of the student.
Now if we can redefine merit to be a raw IQ test at age 16, I'm all for it.
> Under the current system, if the most meritorious student's family makes over $130K, he/she is saddled with debt
Family income probably also speaks to how much they could contribute to the education cost. While in high school they likely had nicer cars and clothes and phones than the kid whose family made $30k.
In case your argument was not about a hard treshold (which isn't the case as pointed out in this thread.) :
How do you define merit?
A family with a higher income are in a better position to leverage their means into a better education and conductive environment. From a systems point of view, you want to balance this out by boosting families or persons of lower means to equalize the opportunity to actually engage in the meritocracy. Subsidizing purely on test scores or similar tends to favor families that already have a high income.
>Under the current system, if the most meritorious student's family makes over $130K, he/she is saddled with debt...
I live in the Rice U neighborhood. (Museum District). I'm very familiar with Rice. Believe me, if your hypothetical student really were the "most meritorious" student at Rice University, she would already have a full ride scholarship.
And if your "most meritorious" student at Rice University does NOT have a full ride scholarship, then she is not the "most meritorious" student at Rice.
The types of financial programs in question are for students who are qualified enough to get into Rice, but whose families are not well resourced enough to pay for Rice. These sorts of programs are laudable, and they are exactly what we need to be doing. There are "country bumpkins" from Angleton and Nacogdoches who are as ready to enter Rice as the sheltered kids behind the gates down Sunset in Houston. It's a GOOD thing that Rice is affording those less privileged children that opportunity.
One thing that I think is sorely missed in these calculations including the FAFSA is length of time the income has been made. There is a huge difference between a family with an 18 year old that has been making 130K+ for the majority of the child's life and the scenario where a parent made it to supervisor after X amount of time with their company putting them to 130K+ in the last year(s). Both look the same in a snapshot.
[+] [-] sct202|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lmkg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TangoTrotFox|7 years ago|reply
Like most top universities Rice has a large endowment. It's upwards of $5 billion in their case. If we take a sub market interest rate of 5% that's $250 million a year. Their entire undergrad body is 4k. That's $62,500 per student per year on a conservative return rate. No top universities actually need tuition anymore, but even top universities are increasingly being run as businesses with growth in 'revenue' seen as a positive in and of itself, necessity aside.
And in this case, they'll likely see major returns on it anyhow. Come donation time, I expect those graduates who were able to find a better place in life thanks to a voluntarily free education are going to be quite quick to open their wallets especially knowing that those donations will in turn go to productively helping the next generation of graduates going through the same cycle.
[+] [-] bytematic|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macspoofing|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychometry|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gyrccc|7 years ago|reply
> Another part of the program will help students whose family income surpasses the maximum: If their family's income is between $130,000 and $200,000, they can still get grants covering at least half of their tuition.
Presumably there're more nuanced factors to consider for families with incomes between $130k and $200k beyond what can be expressed by a simple equation.
[+] [-] arcanus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] augustocallejas|7 years ago|reply
No. From the article:
> Another part of the program will help students whose family income surpasses the maximum: If their family's income is between $130,000 and $200,000, they can still get grants covering at least half of their tuition.
[+] [-] qntty|7 years ago|reply
If their family's income is between $130,000 and $200,000, they can still get grants covering at least half of their tuition.
[+] [-] darawk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yardie|7 years ago|reply
This sort of horse trading happens everyday in our tax system.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mhb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhcom2|7 years ago|reply
https://financialaid.rice.edu/rice-investment-faqs
[+] [-] RickJWagner|7 years ago|reply
FWIW, I took a game programming MOOC from Rice. (I knew nothing of game programming going in.) It turned out to be a great experience, I really enjoyed it.
Thanks, Rice!
[+] [-] j45|7 years ago|reply
Having access to meaningful, transferable and applicable education (one that can be equally applied without a huge saddle of student debt) is a life changer, less so for those who already enjoy privilege and access to opportunity.
[+] [-] colordrops|7 years ago|reply
I don't understand why it's not a continuous scale that just approaches zero at a certain point, rather than these hard cut-offs.
edit: just saw that someone else made a similar comment. Mine is referring to education in general and not the article specifically, and in fact I have personally run into this situation. It seems that educational institutions would be by definition smarter about how they handle this.
[+] [-] Someguywhatever|7 years ago|reply
[your income]/[maxincome] * [MaxFinancialAid]
But then you would end up with situations where people can borrow $500 which is useless. So they just allow it up to 150k and then make it a hard cut off as they feel that anybody who makes that much should absolutely be able to pay, and the administration costs of loaning < 10k could be a waste of time lets say.
[+] [-] geebee|7 years ago|reply
This article from the NYTimes really drove it home: Top Colleges are Cheaper Than You Think (Unless You're Rich).
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/05/opinion/colum...
The data is very interesting. They analysis breaks down family income into different socioeconomic categories, poor, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, affluent, and very affluent.
Well, it turns out the analysis is largely correct - there is substantial reduction in costs for all but the last two categories, "affluent" and "very affluent."
But look at the graph - it's fascinating. There's a meaningful break for every income, but very little difference between what the "Affluent" (family income $186k) and "Very Affluent" ($246k a year).
If you look at the graph, there's a big drop in what you pay below affluent, but "affluent" and "very affluent" pay roughly the same amount.
Here's the thing - that's true at publics as well as privates, but top publics max out at about half the rate of a private (the only one considered here is university of Virginia, UC schools are left off, not sure why). In other words, even if you pay full freight, there's a limiting factor to total costs. The pattern of what various economic groups pay as a percentage of max is the same for UVA and more expensive privates like the ivies, it's just that the whole thing is compressed into a 0-30K/year range instead of a 0-75k/range.
I think that this upper limit appeals immensely to people in the "affluent" but not "very affluent" category. Because they'll be paying "full costs", but are still limited in resources compared to the "very affluent" group, the actual upper limit ends up mattering a great deal.
I grew up in that economic band (affluent but not very affluent), and want to be sure I'm clear on this, "Affluent" as defined here is most definitely not an oppressive place to be from. Actually, it's harder now, in my day (grew up in the 1970s), the equivalent of affluent had no trouble buying a pleasant 3-4 br house in nice if unfashionable part of San Francisco (now: no)
But it does mean 3 kids at an ivy may be cost prohibitive, even for an "Affluent" family. UC schools (or UVA or others), on the other hand, have an upper limit (we were all in state) that makes it more possible. In short, state schools work as equalizers between the affluent and very affluent.
[+] [-] mankash666|7 years ago|reply
Under the current system, if the most meritorious student's family makes over $130K, he/she is saddled with debt, regardless of how good he/she is.
[+] [-] eganist|7 years ago|reply
You'll have a few outliers who kill it in secondary/middle/high school, but for the most part, people who are less well-to-do perform less effectively, and there's more and more research pointing to the likelihood that survival pressures negatively affect academic performance. Maybe not alone, but they're likely connected. (Edit: tylerho references this here—https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18018383)
Good starting point: https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic-achievem...
Basically, if the goal is fairness, merit only fulfills this when other pressures are relieved. This includes racial and income inequality.
[+] [-] bdcravens|7 years ago|reply
I grew up dirt poor. By the time I was in high school I had figured out I needed to do honors classes etc, but kids in families with resources started doing those classes in 7th or 8th grade. A doctor or lawyer understands the value of education for their 12 year old far more than a janitor. Many schools weigh GPAs more heavily for those in honors classes, so even if you're on even footing intellectually, you can't catch up. In other words, we're talking about the merit of the parents' involvement, not the merit of the student.
Now if we can redefine merit to be a raw IQ test at age 16, I'm all for it.
> Under the current system, if the most meritorious student's family makes over $130K, he/she is saddled with debt
Family income probably also speaks to how much they could contribute to the education cost. While in high school they likely had nicer cars and clothes and phones than the kid whose family made $30k.
[+] [-] darawk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yvdriess|7 years ago|reply
How do you define merit?
A family with a higher income are in a better position to leverage their means into a better education and conductive environment. From a systems point of view, you want to balance this out by boosting families or persons of lower means to equalize the opportunity to actually engage in the meritocracy. Subsidizing purely on test scores or similar tends to favor families that already have a high income.
[+] [-] bilbo0s|7 years ago|reply
I live in the Rice U neighborhood. (Museum District). I'm very familiar with Rice. Believe me, if your hypothetical student really were the "most meritorious" student at Rice University, she would already have a full ride scholarship.
And if your "most meritorious" student at Rice University does NOT have a full ride scholarship, then she is not the "most meritorious" student at Rice.
The types of financial programs in question are for students who are qualified enough to get into Rice, but whose families are not well resourced enough to pay for Rice. These sorts of programs are laudable, and they are exactly what we need to be doing. There are "country bumpkins" from Angleton and Nacogdoches who are as ready to enter Rice as the sheltered kids behind the gates down Sunset in Houston. It's a GOOD thing that Rice is affording those less privileged children that opportunity.
[+] [-] macspoofing|7 years ago|reply
>if the most meritorious student's family makes over $130K, he/she is saddled with debt, regardless of how good he/she is.
No. It means they won't qualify for this tuition break however they will have access to merit-based scholarships.
[+] [-] southphillyman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awat|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frgtpsswrdlame|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]