Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Harvard's financial aid programs pay 100 percent of tuition, fees, room, and board for students from families earning less than $65,000 a year. Families with incomes from $65,000 to $150,000 pay between zero and 10 percent of their income. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
Princeton's financial aid programs let over 83% graduate from college without a penny of debt.
Columbia University eliminated all student loans - there are no student loans as part of any financial aid package; all financial aid is free money. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
The University of Pennsylvania did the same: Penn eliminated all student loans - there are no student loans as part of any financial aid package; all financial aid is free money. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
Ditto for Brown: Brown eliminated all student loans - there are no student loans as part of any financial aid package; all financial aid is free money. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
At Cornell, if your parents earn less than $60,000 and have less than $100K in net worth, there are no student loans - just free tuition, room, board & fees. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
The University of Chicago's financial aid package is free tuition & fees for students whose families earn up to $125,000 per year. For students whose families earn up to $60,000, UChicago provides free tuition, fees, books, room & board.
MIT's package is free tuition for students whose families earn up to $80K.
Stanford's package: free tuition for students whose families earn up to $125,000 per year. For students whose families earn up to $60,000, Stanford provides free tuition, fees, room & board.
Harvard's financial aid programs pay 100 percent of tuition, fees, room, and board for students from families earning less than $65,000 a year. Families with incomes from $65,000 to $150,000 pay between zero and 10 percent of their income. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
Princeton's financial aid programs let over 83% graduate from college without a penny of debt.
Columbia University eliminated all student loans - there are no student loans as part of any financial aid package; all financial aid is free money. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
The University of Pennsylvania did the same: Penn eliminated all student loans - there are no student loans as part of any financial aid package; all financial aid is free money. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
Ditto for Brown: Brown eliminated all student loans - there are no student loans as part of any financial aid package; all financial aid is free money. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
At Cornell, if your parents earn less than $60,000 and have less than $100K in net worth, there are no student loans - just free tuition, room, board & fees. Students graduate without a penny of debt.
The University of Chicago's financial aid package is free tuition & fees for students whose families earn up to $125,000 per year. For students whose families earn up to $60,000, UChicago provides free tuition, fees, books, room & board.
MIT's package is free tuition for students whose families earn up to $80K.
Stanford's package: free tuition for students whose families earn up to $125,000 per year. For students whose families earn up to $60,000, Stanford provides free tuition, fees, room & board.
The list goes on and on and on and on ...
These are very competitive universities. Most students have no hope to get in any of them.
State universities offer scholarship to good students too. Some students do not need to pay any tuition.
Every time we either tax something or subsidize something, we consume either less or more than would otherwise be consumed. Sometimes this is justified; other times not so much. For example:
So-called "sin taxes" on alcohol & tobacco, at the margin, reduce the consumption of those products compared to the quantity that would be consumed at their free market prices. Overall, that's probably a good thing.
Subsidies for childhood immunization, at the margin, increases the consumption of those products compared to the quantity that would be consumed at their free market prices. Overall, that's probably a good thing.
Clearly, subsidies in the form of scholarships and student loans results in more higher education products consumed compared to the quantity that would be consumed if students faced the fair market prices.
Is that good or bad?
It clearly is good for the student who receives the subsidy. Numerous quantitative studies show that. It is clearly good for the university administrators, bureaucrats, and other employees. Fewer academic studies focus on that. It is clearly bad for the student who must pay full price, as prices are raised without regard to the market clearing price.
At the end of the day, pretty much anyone with graduate level economics under their belt, a few whiteboards and a marker, and some not particularly advanced mathematics can prove under reasonable assumptions that subsidizing higher education creates both winners and losers, can identify those winners and losers, and can prove that overall GDP will be lower than it otherwise would be absent that distortion in the efficient allocation of capital. That is, society as a whole is a tiny bit worse off.
The old saying goes that universities exist for 3 reasons:
American schools' math/physics requirement is too low. Many students are not well prepared to study STEM in college even if they are interested.
The introductory computer programming classes usually have 40% dropout/fail rate. It is not because the students are not interested. It is because they are not prepared.
There is a difference between a college prep curriculum with a STEM focus and a normal college prep curriculum. My sister took lots of math/science in high school (2 years of calculus) and majored in CS at a top school. Plenty of students with the interest/aptitude pursue these topics. Many students do not have the interest/aptitude. Why force kids who do not have the interest/aptitude to pursue calculus in HS? It makes no sense.
These are very competitive universities. Most students have no hope to get in any of them.
State universities offer scholarship to good students too. Some students do not need to pay any tuition.
If you aren't fit for college, why go? Some people aren't ready at 18.
There is a difference between a college prep curriculum with a STEM focus and a normal college prep curriculum. My sister took lots of math/science in high school (2 years of calculus) and majored in CS at a top school. Plenty of students with the interest/aptitude pursue these topics. Many students do not have the interest/aptitude. Why force kids who do not have the interest/aptitude to pursue calculus in HS? It makes no sense.
Not much. If in a public/charter school (which are public schools no matter what anyone tells you), you have to fulfill the graduation requirements. The private schools, too, follow a curriculum designed to get students accepted at most colleges, which includes more than STEM courses.
My kids took "lots of math/science in high school" as well, took 1 year of calc, both majored in biology in college and got graduate degrees in health care programs. Their HS program was not STEM-focused, though their school did offer a lot of such courses due to the interests of the students. We like in a very techie area, many parents work in IT and related.
Why force kids who do not have the interest/aptitude to pursue calculus in HS? It makes no sense.
There is a difference between "force" and "encourage". Do American schools have the culture to "encourage" students to make great efforts in math? I do not think so. Many kids with the potential are wasted.
A problem in American culture is that they believe in "interest" too much. Interest always changes. And "not interested" is often an excuse.
Also, the "minimum requirement" needs to be high enough too. It is not just about offering advanced classes to top students.
CS (basic level) does not really demand a lot of math. In fact it requires less math than all engineering fields. We cannot simply say "the students are too weak". There must be something wrong in the educational system.
Any group of people will have relatively weak ones.
Some students mature later too.
I agree. Weak people should not be attending college. There are other opportunities for them. Those who mature later should attend at a later date. There's nothing wrong with that. But settling for a low quality school... especially if it involves taxpayer-funded financial aid... hurts everyone.
I agree. Weak people should not be attending college. There are other opportunities for them. Those who mature later should attend at a later date. There's nothing wrong with that. But settling for a low quality school... especially if it involves taxpayer-funded financial aid... hurts everyone.
Those who mature later need some push. American schools do not push them enough.
Of course college is not for everyone. However, many students did not try hard enough to see if they fit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
