Harvard Says Tuition Will Be Free For Families Making $200K or Less (go.com) 62
Harvard University on Monday announced that tuition will be free for students from families with annual incomes of $200,000 or less starting in the 2025-26 academic year. From a report: "Putting Harvard within financial reach for more individuals widens the array of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives that all of our students encounter, fostering their intellectual and personal growth," Harvard University President Alan M. Garber said in a statement. "By bringing people of outstanding promise together to learn with and from one another, we truly realize the tremendous potential of the University."
The new plan will enable about 86% of U.S. families to qualify for Harvard financial aid and expand the Ivy League college's commitment to providing all undergrads the resources they need to enroll and graduate, according to Garber.
The new plan will enable about 86% of U.S. families to qualify for Harvard financial aid and expand the Ivy League college's commitment to providing all undergrads the resources they need to enroll and graduate, according to Garber.
okie dokie (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to point out the obvious, 86% of US families does not mean 86% of applicants or 86% of admittees. Am very curious to know what fraction of admitted applicants fall below this threshold.
The problem with the US educational system is that since around 2000 or so the admittance rates at top universities has plummeted. There was a long steady deline for decades and decades (it used to be the case that almost all applicants got into Harvard) but even in the 1990s your odds were about 1 in 7 -- the "smart guy" from your high school who got nearly a 1600 on his SAT most likely would get into Harvard (and if he didn't get in there, he'd probably get into Yale, Stanford or at least Princeton). And of course when the threshold gets tough, the kids that get in are going to be richer and stupider because their parents are able to bend the rules for them -- like getting fake doctors' notes to get extra time on the SAT, which the universities are not informed about, or by signing the kids up for bullshit community service projects. Harvard is trying to fight this by increasing the yield among its less affluent applicants but frankly it is a hopeless exercise.
The reason the admittance rates has plummeted is that applications have skyrocketed, and the reasons for that are two-fold, the Common Application (no need to spend time writing stupid essays about sporks and tubas for the University of Chicago, or bothering your teachers for another letter of recommendation) and the realization that our society has bifurcated to a ridiculous extent and getting a good job out of college is very important, so going to a good college matters more than ever.
Loans (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Loans (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody ever points out the drastic differences between private and public 4 year colleges.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the 1990s the government made it a lot easier for anyone to get a student loan. They used to be reserved for those who couldn't afford college outright, or were going to be lawyers or doctors and would incur large costs that they could pay back once they graduated. Exactly in line with that change, college tuition started increasing *much* faster than inflation. It tracks perfectly. https://educationdata.org/aver... [educationdata.org] From 1970 to 1990, average tuition increased by about $8,000. From 1990 to 2010, average tuition increased by $16,000.
Yep. Subsidizing something - even if only temporarily by load, or indirectly via loan guarantees - makes prices rise.
Re: (Score:1)
In the 1990s the government made it a lot easier for anyone to get a student loan. They used to be reserved for those who couldn't afford college outright, or were going to be lawyers or doctors and would incur large costs that they could pay back once they graduated. Exactly in line with that change, college tuition started increasing *much* faster than inflation. It tracks perfectly. https://educationdata.org/aver... [educationdata.org] From 1970 to 1990, average tuition increased by about $8,000. From 1990 to 2010, average tuition increased by $16,000.
Yep. Subsidizing something - even if only temporarily by load, or indirectly via loan guarantees - makes prices rise.
Sorry, that was supposed to be "by loan", not "by load".
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1990s the government made it a lot easier for anyone to get a student loan. They used to be reserved for those who couldn't afford college outright, or were going to be lawyers or doctors and would incur large costs that they could pay back once they graduated.
Exactly in line with that change, college tuition started increasing *much* faster than inflation. It tracks perfectly.
https://educationdata.org/aver... [educationdata.org]
From 1970 to 1990, average tuition increased by about $8,000. From 1990 to 2010, average tuition increased by $16,000.
Yep. Subsidizing something - even if only temporarily by load, or indirectly via loan guarantees - makes prices rise.
Comparing loans to subsidies and rebates is dumb. Loans make it easier for a person to spend their own money, then you pay for them with interest. Temporary subsidy.. ok r-tard
So here we are, Republicans have a problem with other people spending their own money when it makes the things they want go up, to the shock and surprise of nobody.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1990s the government made it a lot easier for anyone to get a student loan. They used to be reserved for those who couldn't afford college outright, or were going to be lawyers or doctors and would incur large costs that they could pay back once they graduated.
Exactly in line with that change, college tuition started increasing *much* faster than inflation. It tracks perfectly.
https://educationdata.org/aver... [educationdata.org]
From 1970 to 1990, average tuition increased by about $8,000. From 1990 to 2010, average tuition increased by $16,000.
No, it does not track... Your own link shows inflation adjusted tuition is a straight line all the way through the 90's. It's right there on the third chart down, Inflation-Adjusted Cost of College Tuition & Fees. You intentionally quoted numbers from the non-adjusted data at the top, and private schools at that.
From the same source - https://educationdata.org/educ... [educationdata.org]
The percentage of the population with college degrees doubled from 1970 to 1990 and tripled from 1970 to 2010, while the population has al
Re:okie dokie (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to point out the obvious, 86% of US families does not mean 86% of applicants or 86% of admittees(sic).
Also worth pointing out, that statistic doesn't matter one iota. Tuition was not free for that same group before, so they were discouraged from applying. And regardless of the fraction this would help, it is nonetheless a step in a good direction, no? Shouldn't this be immediately applauded, and we can bitch about the cutoff and details later?
Re: (Score:3)
Just to point out the obvious, 86% of US families does not mean 86% of applicants or 86% of admittees(sic).
Also worth pointing out, that statistic doesn't matter one iota. Tuition was not free for that same group before, so they were discouraged from applying. And regardless of the fraction this would help, it is nonetheless a step in a good direction, no? Shouldn't this be immediately applauded, and we can bitch about the cutoff and details later?
I think there is not much change here other than formalizing policies which were already in place. It's common knowledge among guidance counselors and those considering college that the top schools provide enough financial assistance so that anyone with the grades can afford it. Harvard may not have been communicating that clearly, but it has been the case for decades. The transparency is a good step though.
Re: (Score:2)
And regardless of the fraction this would help, it is nonetheless a step in a good direction, no?
I don't know.
I'm all for making education as accessible as possible, and something is definitely broken.
But education can never be "free" in an absolute sense. It requires educators & administrators. Someone has to put in the work of creating the curriculum and teaching the students... not to mention acquiring the skills and experience to be able to do so effectively. And if it is a physical school that we're talking about, there are a lot of maintenance costs associated with the property as well.
All of
well the big university model is an poor fit for a (Score:3)
well the big university model is an poor fit for all skills. Also the university forced alot of the trade schools into the multi year university system that leaded to bloat and skills education.
Lots of student don't want put in the individual effort into learn years of BS filler classes. Some what to get skilled needed to start working.
At some universitys the students can loaded with theroy with big skill gaps on how to really do an job. You don't have plumbers do 4+ years of pure class room before starting
Re: (Score:2)
well the big university model is an poor fit for all skills. Also the university forced alot of the trade schools into the multi year university system that leaded to bloat and skills education.
Lots of student don't want put in the individual effort into learn years of BS filler classes. Some what to get skilled needed to start working.
At some universitys the students can loaded with theroy with big skill gaps on how to really do an job. You don't have plumbers do 4+ years of pure class room before starting an trade.
Well the universitys may want to have 4 years uni + 1-2 years trade but does the student really want the 150K-200K+ loan that comes with that?
And this is what happens when you consider grammar/English a "BS filler class"...
Re: (Score:2)
I notice that they keep using the word "families."
Does that mean that unmarried individuals living alone will not be eligible for this financial aid?
The article doesn't say.
Re: (Score:2)
They mean parents. If your parents make 200K+, you'll be inelligible. As most college aged students rely on their families for support, and pretty much none of them have 200K (or even 20K) in income themselves. That's the same way pretty much all college financial aid works. Its fair for the majority, although there is a minority estranged from parents or who's parents refuse to help that get screwed over.
Re: (Score:2)
Unmarried individuals still have parents (living or otherwise). And if you think you can ever escape them, "Error: Number of people in your family must be 2 or greater."
Re: (Score:2)
To put a few numbers behind your post...
Harvard accepts about 1,950 students each year (that has stayed virtually unchanged for 30+ years). The number of applicants in 1995 was like ~18k, the number of applicants in 2024 was like ~57k. The admittance rate is now below 4% (was about 10% in 95 but used to be much higher like you said)...
There is a lot of people screaming bloody murder about the price of education, and rightly so. I'm just saying though, its not like its a product no one is willing to pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
86% of US families does not mean 86% of applicants
True, but it means an otherwise qualified applicant does not have to pass on Harvard for financial reasons. That's great progress.
Too many nil wits from families with money? (Score:1)
Have to make exams easier and easier for the pampered morons to pass? Sounds like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With all the money at stake? There surely is such a channel and there surely is a system for getting these low performers quietly through to graduation somehow...
Re:Hey! That is DEI ! (Score:5, Informative)
However, the Pentagon has purged the web page describing his actions, and instead has it marked DEI [military.com]. Because clearly he only received the medal because of the color of his skin.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've tried, many times, to try to... reason some common ground with the militantly "anti-DEI folks"... and I can see legitimate concerns... But every time I try, it's really inevitable that I come to the conclusion that they've just found a name for their racism.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It replaced the suggested quotas and instead just talked about issues with diversity, not enforcing it. It essentially did nothing.
Re:Hey! That is DEI ! (Score:5, Informative)
You're joking, but that's what happened to Lt. Colonel Charles Calvin Rogers. Wounded three times in Vietnam while defending his fire base, he was awarded the Medal of Honor by Nixon.
However, the Pentagon has purged the web page describing his actions, and instead has it marked DEI [military.com]. Because clearly he only received the medal because of the color of his skin.
The page has apparently restored and the altered link [defense.gov] (with the letters "dei" noted in the article) now redirects to one w/o those letters: Medal of Honor Monday: Army Maj. Gen. Charles Calvin Rogers [defense.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hey! That is DEI ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Hegsdeth issued a set of keywords to be scrubbed, and then they were scrubbed. Turns out they were both racist and incompetent.
The recist-in-chief fired the one black man and the one woman from the JCS. It wasn't accidental.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't end up with those tats unless you were hanging with a bunch of fucking neonazis.
Nope, it's actual equality. (Score:2)
Hey! That is DEI !. They're deliberately including those that otherwise could not get in.
Nope. Race, gender, sexual preferences, etc are not a factor. Just financial disadvantage, where is universal to all protected classes.
"86% of U.S. families qualify" (Score:2)
That's the statistic they highlight in the article, but it's not a very useful statistic. What percentage of accepted Harvard applicants would qualify?
That's not reported in the article, although I did find a study from 2013 showing that the median family income for a Harvard student was $168K at that time (about $228K in today's dollars).
200k is the new middle class LOW bar... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that can vary significantly by where exactly you live. Where I'm at in Seattle, 200k is probably middle of the pack for middle class.
This is good, but... (Score:3)
Far too many people want to go there, not for the education, but for the social status
They put in minimal effort, socializing, binge drinking and cheating on exams
College should be about academic excellence, not social status
Re:This is good, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All non-legacy seats are available (Score:2)
We know how this game works. It's free, but you can't have it.
Untrue. The sub $200K get access to all the seats left unfilled by the legacy applicants.
Skimming the cream (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the print finely (Score:5, Insightful)
The tuition is free. The room, board, books, etc. will probably still require selling a kidney or two.
Re: (Score:3)
This fixes some problems and doesn't fix others. DEI was the same way. I'm happy with Harvard's solution, but it still means that folks from poor schools won't look good to Harvard (my school was white and middle class, but only had one AP class, English).
Also, remember that the biggest DEI pipeline at most companies was the Veterans Hiring Pipeline. Turns out that recent veterans often don't know how to sell themselves to companies nor to colleges, but most of us know that a veteran is an incredible co-
Re: (Score:2)
but most of us know that a veteran is an incredible co-worker
Eh, you paint with a broad brush. "Veteran" covers a wide swath of people, and they're not all the same. I have four siblings that are veterans, and I wouldn't hire one of them. In fact, one does taxes for a living, and I would rather do them myself than give him my business.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I completely agree. But like all DEI, "veteran" has never meant "will always get the job". It has always meant "boost to account for the usual idiots who SWEAR up and down that they are completely unbiased but always rate People Like Themselves slightly higher than Other People". And when I say "usual unbiased idiots" I include myself because we're all terrible at this, tribalism is wired into our DNA, but efforts like DEI are a way to fight against the bias that we are 100000% sure we don't have but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good. DEI is dead. Now we can help the poor. (Score:2)
Expand enrollment (Score:3)
While their cost is certainly an issue, one of the biggest problems in higher ed (esp among so-called elite schools) if the stagnant enrollment size. The purpose of higher ed SHOULD be to educate as many eligible people as possible (notice I said eligible I don't mean let in people not meeting the standards), but schools like Harvard LOVE their low acceptance rate and 'elite' status, so they won't do it.
The US population has grown a lot since the 80s, but universities and college haven't kept up. Harvard has a massive fucking endowment, they could expand their offerings and enrollment if they chose to invest. They enroll a measley 2000 freshmen a year, how about adding 100 every year?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is my point. Harvard is failing in its mission as a high ed institution, 2000 kids a year is not enough -- it's NOT meant to be a fucking luxury brand worrying about dilution.