What percentage do you pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College financial aid is totally different. College students are typically legal adults capable of receiving educational loans. The universities are large, complex institutions with typically large funding sources beyond tuition that have large endowments.

Local K-12 schools have limited resources and funding sources with small endowments. The money for financial aid really is coming from the full pay families who pay significantly more in tuition to cover financial aid in the annual budget. It is expected that parents should be able to cover full pay tuition and the majority do.

You think that the full-pay families paying over $100,000 per kid per year aren’t subsidizing the financial aid kids? While top schools do typically have decent endowments, the endowment returns aren’t even close to what’s required to fund aid. Brown, for example, only generates $25,000 in safe withdrawal per student per year on its endowment. Yet the average financial aid grant award is $49,830, with 43% of students getting financial aid.

Funding from faculty research grants, tuition for pricy graduate programs, and federal grants keep things running. Undergraduate tuition is not funding financial aid. It is just a money grab and completely detached from what it costs to educate someone. It is arbitrary.

How do elite liberal arts schools with no graduate programs and tiny inflow from federal research grants pay for more than half their students to be on need-based aid? Look at Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and Pomona.

Respectfully, nobody cares about those schools. SLACs are irrelevant.

Hahaha sorry you’ve been presented with evidence that kills your argument. Don’t worry, your kid can’t get into any of the schools we’re discussing anyway, with or without aid.

Finances of large universities and SLACs are completely different. We were specifically talking about Brown as an example. I will repeat that nobody cares about SLACs.

The financial aid programs are identical despite one group having none of the subsidy sources you cite that you claim fund financial aid. So that is not the distinguishing factor.

And it doesn’t even make sense that federal research grants, which are strictly audited, function to subsidize undergraduate financial aid. As we can see by the massive cuts in federal research funding, the university doesn’t make up for those cuts with its own funds. The volume of research and doctoral
students just declines.

Your tuition dollars to Cornell of $100,000 per year are no doubt subsidizing the average $58,000 per year grant nearly half of undergrads receive, which cost $470MM per year. Cornell can only safely withdraw $14,500 per student per year from endowment returns. That’s $229MM from the endowment, at most, going toward aid. Guess what is making up the $241MM difference? Revenue.

At a large university like Cornell, that isn’t how any of this works. You are way out of your depth and you don’t seem capable of understanding any of this. You are wrong about all of it but this is already too far off topic for this thread for me to continue.

Good grief I literally do higher ed financial aid as part of my job. Specifically elite higher ed financial aid.

But glad to know *this* is where you draw the line on getting “too far off-topic.” Once you’ve been objectively proven wrong.

This can’t be your job. You don’t even understand basics.

+1. I feel like I’ve seen the “higher ed financial aid” poster here before and they don’t seem to have the most basic understanding of university finances, how tuition credits are applied to reach net student tuition and fees, or how money is fungible.

If you understand that money is fungible, you should definitely understand that the tuition revenue you pay is being used to subsidize those who receive financial aid and thus generate less revenue. But apparently you only understand that in the K-12 context. Then it evaporates for you. Except for, I guess, liberal arts schools, where you concede there’s a subsidy but insists “nobody cares.”

The difference is sources of income.

Universities have lots of sources of income which makes the price they set for tuition more arbitrary since they are covering costs with a lot more than just tuition, even income from things like the athletic department and executive education, but lots of faculty research grants and federal program grants, that they can easily balance the budget and fund financial aid other ways. The price of tuition is pretty arbitrary and set to maximize what the market will tolerate.

For local K-12 private schools, they mainly just have tuition and philanthropy. Other sources of income are tiny and can be ignored. It is clear how their financial aid is funded.

It also ignores the expenditure side of the equation, in that most financial aid doesn’t need to be explicitly funded (there is no distribution of it) but simply results in lower revenue. Which can also be (and often is) absorbed through lower expenditures as well. This is why the whole framework of “this money comes from this pot and goes to that purpose” is completely out of whack with how budgeting works.

Correct, financial aid creates a hole in the budget from what revenue would have been if full pay students were enrolled instead. You can consider this theoretical or real, but since local K-12 private schools tout their annual financial aid budgets, I consider this hole in the budget real. At some private schools it is close to $10M per year. It is a large chunk of the annual budget.

At universities with complex finances, it is more theoretical and represents a smaller portion of the annual budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College financial aid is totally different. College students are typically legal adults capable of receiving educational loans. The universities are large, complex institutions with typically large funding sources beyond tuition that have large endowments.

Local K-12 schools have limited resources and funding sources with small endowments. The money for financial aid really is coming from the full pay families who pay significantly more in tuition to cover financial aid in the annual budget. It is expected that parents should be able to cover full pay tuition and the majority do.

You think that the full-pay families paying over $100,000 per kid per year aren’t subsidizing the financial aid kids? While top schools do typically have decent endowments, the endowment returns aren’t even close to what’s required to fund aid. Brown, for example, only generates $25,000 in safe withdrawal per student per year on its endowment. Yet the average financial aid grant award is $49,830, with 43% of students getting financial aid.

Funding from faculty research grants, tuition for pricy graduate programs, and federal grants keep things running. Undergraduate tuition is not funding financial aid. It is just a money grab and completely detached from what it costs to educate someone. It is arbitrary.

How do elite liberal arts schools with no graduate programs and tiny inflow from federal research grants pay for more than half their students to be on need-based aid? Look at Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and Pomona.

Respectfully, nobody cares about those schools. SLACs are irrelevant.

Hahaha sorry you’ve been presented with evidence that kills your argument. Don’t worry, your kid can’t get into any of the schools we’re discussing anyway, with or without aid.

Finances of large universities and SLACs are completely different. We were specifically talking about Brown as an example. I will repeat that nobody cares about SLACs.

The financial aid programs are identical despite one group having none of the subsidy sources you cite that you claim fund financial aid. So that is not the distinguishing factor.

And it doesn’t even make sense that federal research grants, which are strictly audited, function to subsidize undergraduate financial aid. As we can see by the massive cuts in federal research funding, the university doesn’t make up for those cuts with its own funds. The volume of research and doctoral
students just declines.

Your tuition dollars to Cornell of $100,000 per year are no doubt subsidizing the average $58,000 per year grant nearly half of undergrads receive, which cost $470MM per year. Cornell can only safely withdraw $14,500 per student per year from endowment returns. That’s $229MM from the endowment, at most, going toward aid. Guess what is making up the $241MM difference? Revenue.

At a large university like Cornell, that isn’t how any of this works. You are way out of your depth and you don’t seem capable of understanding any of this. You are wrong about all of it but this is already too far off topic for this thread for me to continue.

Good grief I literally do higher ed financial aid as part of my job. Specifically elite higher ed financial aid.

But glad to know *this* is where you draw the line on getting “too far off-topic.” Once you’ve been objectively proven wrong.

This can’t be your job. You don’t even understand basics.

+1. I feel like I’ve seen the “higher ed financial aid” poster here before and they don’t seem to have the most basic understanding of university finances, how tuition credits are applied to reach net student tuition and fees, or how money is fungible.

If you understand that money is fungible, you should definitely understand that the tuition revenue you pay is being used to subsidize those who receive financial aid and thus generate less revenue. But apparently you only understand that in the K-12 context. Then it evaporates for you. Except for, I guess, liberal arts schools, where you concede there’s a subsidy but insists “nobody cares.”

The difference is sources of income.

Universities have lots of sources of income which makes the price they set for tuition more arbitrary since they are covering costs with a lot more than just tuition, even income from things like the athletic department and executive education, but lots of faculty research grants and federal program grants, that they can easily balance the budget and fund financial aid other ways. The price of tuition is pretty arbitrary and set to maximize what the market will tolerate.

For local K-12 private schools, they mainly just have tuition and philanthropy. Other sources of income are tiny and can be ignored. It is clear how their financial aid is funded.

It also ignores the expenditure side of the equation, in that most financial aid doesn’t need to be explicitly funded (there is no distribution of it) but simply results in lower revenue. Which can also be (and often is) absorbed through lower expenditures as well. This is why the whole framework of “this money comes from this pot and goes to that purpose” is completely out of whack with how budgeting works.

You understand that this support there being no difference between K-12 aid and college aid.

No please think more deeply about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College financial aid is totally different. College students are typically legal adults capable of receiving educational loans. The universities are large, complex institutions with typically large funding sources beyond tuition that have large endowments.

Local K-12 schools have limited resources and funding sources with small endowments. The money for financial aid really is coming from the full pay families who pay significantly more in tuition to cover financial aid in the annual budget. It is expected that parents should be able to cover full pay tuition and the majority do.

You think that the full-pay families paying over $100,000 per kid per year aren’t subsidizing the financial aid kids? While top schools do typically have decent endowments, the endowment returns aren’t even close to what’s required to fund aid. Brown, for example, only generates $25,000 in safe withdrawal per student per year on its endowment. Yet the average financial aid grant award is $49,830, with 43% of students getting financial aid.

Funding from faculty research grants, tuition for pricy graduate programs, and federal grants keep things running. Undergraduate tuition is not funding financial aid. It is just a money grab and completely detached from what it costs to educate someone. It is arbitrary.

How do elite liberal arts schools with no graduate programs and tiny inflow from federal research grants pay for more than half their students to be on need-based aid? Look at Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and Pomona.

Respectfully, nobody cares about those schools. SLACs are irrelevant.

Hahaha sorry you’ve been presented with evidence that kills your argument. Don’t worry, your kid can’t get into any of the schools we’re discussing anyway, with or without aid.

Finances of large universities and SLACs are completely different. We were specifically talking about Brown as an example. I will repeat that nobody cares about SLACs.

The financial aid programs are identical despite one group having none of the subsidy sources you cite that you claim fund financial aid. So that is not the distinguishing factor.

And it doesn’t even make sense that federal research grants, which are strictly audited, function to subsidize undergraduate financial aid. As we can see by the massive cuts in federal research funding, the university doesn’t make up for those cuts with its own funds. The volume of research and doctoral
students just declines.

Your tuition dollars to Cornell of $100,000 per year are no doubt subsidizing the average $58,000 per year grant nearly half of undergrads receive, which cost $470MM per year. Cornell can only safely withdraw $14,500 per student per year from endowment returns. That’s $229MM from the endowment, at most, going toward aid. Guess what is making up the $241MM difference? Revenue.

At a large university like Cornell, that isn’t how any of this works. You are way out of your depth and you don’t seem capable of understanding any of this. You are wrong about all of it but this is already too far off topic for this thread for me to continue.

Good grief I literally do higher ed financial aid as part of my job. Specifically elite higher ed financial aid.

But glad to know *this* is where you draw the line on getting “too far off-topic.” Once you’ve been objectively proven wrong.

This can’t be your job. You don’t even understand basics.

+1. I feel like I’ve seen the “higher ed financial aid” poster here before and they don’t seem to have the most basic understanding of university finances, how tuition credits are applied to reach net student tuition and fees, or how money is fungible.

If you understand that money is fungible, you should definitely understand that the tuition revenue you pay is being used to subsidize those who receive financial aid and thus generate less revenue. But apparently you only understand that in the K-12 context. Then it evaporates for you. Except for, I guess, liberal arts schools, where you concede there’s a subsidy but insists “nobody cares.”

The difference is sources of income.

Universities have lots of sources of income which makes the price they set for tuition more arbitrary since they are covering costs with a lot more than just tuition, even income from things like the athletic department and executive education, but lots of faculty research grants and federal program grants, that they can easily balance the budget and fund financial aid other ways. The price of tuition is pretty arbitrary and set to maximize what the market will tolerate.

For local K-12 private schools, they mainly just have tuition and philanthropy. Other sources of income are tiny and can be ignored. It is clear how their financial aid is funded.

It also ignores the expenditure side of the equation, in that most financial aid doesn’t need to be explicitly funded (there is no distribution of it) but simply results in lower revenue. Which can also be (and often is) absorbed through lower expenditures as well. This is why the whole framework of “this money comes from this pot and goes to that purpose” is completely out of whack with how budgeting works.

Correct, financial aid creates a hole in the budget from what revenue would have been if full pay students were enrolled instead. You can consider this theoretical or real, but since local K-12 private schools tout their annual financial aid budgets, I consider this hole in the budget real. At some private schools it is close to $10M per year. It is a large chunk of the annual budget.

At universities with complex finances, it is more theoretical and represents a smaller portion of the annual budget.

I’m PP who wrote that and agree 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College financial aid is totally different. College students are typically legal adults capable of receiving educational loans. The universities are large, complex institutions with typically large funding sources beyond tuition that have large endowments.

Local K-12 schools have limited resources and funding sources with small endowments. The money for financial aid really is coming from the full pay families who pay significantly more in tuition to cover financial aid in the annual budget. It is expected that parents should be able to cover full pay tuition and the majority do.

You think that the full-pay families paying over $100,000 per kid per year aren’t subsidizing the financial aid kids? While top schools do typically have decent endowments, the endowment returns aren’t even close to what’s required to fund aid. Brown, for example, only generates $25,000 in safe withdrawal per student per year on its endowment. Yet the average financial aid grant award is $49,830, with 43% of students getting financial aid.

Funding from faculty research grants, tuition for pricy graduate programs, and federal grants keep things running. Undergraduate tuition is not funding financial aid. It is just a money grab and completely detached from what it costs to educate someone. It is arbitrary.

How do elite liberal arts schools with no graduate programs and tiny inflow from federal research grants pay for more than half their students to be on need-based aid? Look at Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and Pomona.

Respectfully, nobody cares about those schools. SLACs are irrelevant.

Hahaha sorry you’ve been presented with evidence that kills your argument. Don’t worry, your kid can’t get into any of the schools we’re discussing anyway, with or without aid.

Finances of large universities and SLACs are completely different. We were specifically talking about Brown as an example. I will repeat that nobody cares about SLACs.

The financial aid programs are identical despite one group having none of the subsidy sources you cite that you claim fund financial aid. So that is not the distinguishing factor.

And it doesn’t even make sense that federal research grants, which are strictly audited, function to subsidize undergraduate financial aid. As we can see by the massive cuts in federal research funding, the university doesn’t make up for those cuts with its own funds. The volume of research and doctoral
students just declines.

Your tuition dollars to Cornell of $100,000 per year are no doubt subsidizing the average $58,000 per year grant nearly half of undergrads receive, which cost $470MM per year. Cornell can only safely withdraw $14,500 per student per year from endowment returns. That’s $229MM from the endowment, at most, going toward aid. Guess what is making up the $241MM difference? Revenue.

At a large university like Cornell, that isn’t how any of this works. You are way out of your depth and you don’t seem capable of understanding any of this. You are wrong about all of it but this is already too far off topic for this thread for me to continue.

Good grief I literally do higher ed financial aid as part of my job. Specifically elite higher ed financial aid.

But glad to know *this* is where you draw the line on getting “too far off-topic.” Once you’ve been objectively proven wrong.

This can’t be your job. You don’t even understand basics.

+1. I feel like I’ve seen the “higher ed financial aid” poster here before and they don’t seem to have the most basic understanding of university finances, how tuition credits are applied to reach net student tuition and fees, or how money is fungible.

If you understand that money is fungible, you should definitely understand that the tuition revenue you pay is being used to subsidize those who receive financial aid and thus generate less revenue. But apparently you only understand that in the K-12 context. Then it evaporates for you. Except for, I guess, liberal arts schools, where you concede there’s a subsidy but insists “nobody cares.”

The difference is sources of income.

Universities have lots of sources of income which makes the price they set for tuition more arbitrary since they are covering costs with a lot more than just tuition, even income from things like the athletic department and executive education, but lots of faculty research grants and federal program grants, that they can easily balance the budget and fund financial aid other ways. The price of tuition is pretty arbitrary and set to maximize what the market will tolerate.

For local K-12 private schools, they mainly just have tuition and philanthropy. Other sources of income are tiny and can be ignored. It is clear how their financial aid is funded.

It also ignores the expenditure side of the equation, in that most financial aid doesn’t need to be explicitly funded (there is no distribution of it) but simply results in lower revenue. Which can also be (and often is) absorbed through lower expenditures as well. This is why the whole framework of “this money comes from this pot and goes to that purpose” is completely out of whack with how budgeting works.

Correct, financial aid creates a hole in the budget from what revenue would have been if full pay students were enrolled instead. You can consider this theoretical or real, but since local K-12 private schools tout their annual financial aid budgets, I consider this hole in the budget real. At some private schools it is close to $10M per year. It is a large chunk of the annual budget.

At universities with complex finances, it is more theoretical and represents a smaller portion of the annual budget.

What are the more "complex" finances? Just more revenue sources? Is the hole equally "theoretical" for elite LACs that fund the same if not better financial aid?

[Anonymous]

I think financial aid in private schools in the Dc is just a give away with very poor value to schools. Raising teachers salaries instead of giving financial aid to a bunch of well off families would not only improve educational outcomes but will also be more progressive and inclusive. Rich families will be ok without financial aid.

[Anonymous]

If I were wealthier I would definitely pay for more of my kids' friends to study, travel or just hang out together. But that's me.