Should Yale and Harvard offer free tuition?

[bulldog10jw]

This Wall Street Journal article speculates on the affect that would have on sports, especially football.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119638609639708891.html

[Franks Tanks]

This Wall Street Journal article speculates on the affect that would have on sports, especially football.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119638609639708891.html

This article is pretty stupid, yes this would allow Harvard and Yale to attract better athletes overall, but the kids will still have to be able to get INTO the school and want to play there. Also the Ivy's would have to lift the ban on postseason football play. I would venture to guess that very few if any of Ohio State's or LSU's football players could get into Harvard or Yale based on current requirements. Also how can the goverment require that private school spend there endowment--it was compiled by private donations and belongs to a private entity--Perhaps that is the Hillary Clinton healthcare plan, have the Yale and Harvard endowment pay for healthcare to the poor.

[Marcus Garvey]

Well of course they wouldn't be competing with the I-A football factories for athletes. However this would give them a huge edge against their "peer" schools, namely the other Ivies. But ultimately, Tanks is right, it's a pretty stupid article.

But, I can see the upside to free tuition at Harvard and Yale. That would be in the form of real-life unintential tragic comedy. I can only imagine what sort of cut-throat tactics those honor students at the egg-head high schools would be doing to come out on top of their class, and have an edge for a free-ride at Yale or Harvard....

I imagine we'd be seeing links on Drudge about principals being blackmailed, students getting drugged before tests, etc... Actually, I hope they do something like that for my amusment. :D

[mathman]

The government might be using the same leverage they have with Title IX. If a school accepts any federal money then apparently the federal government can dictate its policies and thanks to the Democrats that government oversight extends beyond the department or whatever that received federal funds. Now federal rules cover the entire institution. But I really don't like the idea of the federal government requiring schools to spend a percentage of their endowment on tuition.

I like what Home Depot did a few years ago. They got so sick and tired of all the paperwork they had to do for federal business that they banned any more dealings with the government. Unfortunately, most schools don't have that luxury as the federal government sponsors a lot of research.

[Ivytalk]

Gosh, does Cooper Union have a football program? They have free tuition, after all.

Here's what I'd do: I'd allow schollys across all sports in the Ivies, and I'd require the fat-cat, neurotic parents of Upper-East-Side preppie types to pay double tuition as a condition of admission of their uptight, "X-ray" overachieving offspring, in order to fund those schollys for deserving athletes.xthumbsupx

Is that a plan, or what?

[danefan]

Gov't can't actually require these schools to spend their endowment. What it can do is take away their tax-exempt status. That is what the IRS does to private foundations who fail to spend a portion of their endowments. And schools wouldn't be able to cry fowl because there is not right to tax-exemption.

Plus this situation is similar to what the service academies have. Service academies aren't restricted by 85 rides because everyone goes for "free". They are also hindered by academic restrictions and of course have trouble recruiting because of the whole war issue.

[mathman]

Well of course they wouldn't be competing with the I-A football factories for athletes. However this would give them a huge edge against their "peer" schools, namely the other Ivies. But ultimately, Tanks is right, it's a pretty stupid article.

But, I can see the upside to free tuition at Harvard and Yale. That would be in the form of real-life unintential tragic comedy. I can only imagine what sort of cut-throat tactics those honor students at the egg-head high schools would be doing to come out on top of their class, and have an edge for a free-ride at Yale or Harvard....

I imagine we'd be seeing links on Drudge about principals being blackmailed, students getting drugged before tests, etc... Actually, I hope they do something like that for my amusment. :D

Well, I had a friend who made a 1600 on his SAT and was turned down by both Harvard and MIT. He got an interview at both schools, but these elite schools are looking for more than academic excellence. They are looking for future movers and shakers, people who will make a difference in the world. People joke about Bush who went to both Harvard and Yale, but uh...he was governor of Texas and now President.

[CCU97]

You guys can laugh all you want...but the Senate and House have taken the financial aid pretty seriously as of late. I've been a financial aid director for almost 10 years and this is the strongest I've seen Congress pushing for the schools to foot the bill instead of the taxpayer! Of course they want the current funding to be used elsewhere....but what will happen ultimately is that the schools who do not have large endowments will become even lower tiered and not be able to assist students enough. These school would then close and make getting a college education less likely for graduating HS Seniors....driving us back into the 50's and 40's as far as college attendance....and would take 20-30 years for families to get back into the habit of saving for college(enough to actually pay for it). Who cares what it does to sports....not much I would assume since most schools would be able to give all athletes a free ride under this criteria....it would hurt the average student and the middle income family even more than the current system.

[CCU97]

Gov't can't actually require these schools to spend their endowment. What it can do is take away their tax-exempt status. That is what the IRS does to private foundations who fail to spend a portion of their endowments. And schools wouldn't be able to cry fowl because there is not right to tax-exemption.

Plus this situation is similar to what the service academies have. Service academies aren't restricted by 85 rides because everyone goes for "free". They are also hindered by academic restrictions and of course have trouble recruiting because of the whole war issue.


Yes they can require that x% be spent a year....even without the tax exempt being held over their head....it is called Title IV aid....grants(ACG/Smart, Pell, FSEOG), loans(Stafford,PLUS,Perkins),work-study ect. without these funds the vast majority of colleges in the US would go under....

[danefan]

Yes they can require that x% be spent a year....even without the tax exempt being held over their head....it is called Title IV aid....grants(ACG/Smart, Pell, FSEOG), loans(Stafford,PLUS,Perkins),work-study ect. without these funds the vast majority of colleges in the US would go under....


good point.

Like usual I was just thinking from the tax perspective (darn day job)xthumbsupx

[CCU97]

ha...I get the best of both worlds....work for a law school in financial aid...lol

[Franks Tanks]

Yes they can require that x% be spent a year....even without the tax exempt being held over their head....it is called Title IV aid....grants(ACG/Smart, Pell, FSEOG), loans(Stafford,PLUS,Perkins),work-study ect. without these funds the vast majority of colleges in the US would go under....

You make some very interesting points, and I will word what I am about say carefully. Too many unqualified people attend college, making even the lowest tier colleges more selective wouldnt be a bad thing. College isnt a right but a privlidge that should be afforded to qualifies applicants. Now I also believe no one should have to go without college because they cant afford it, but if there not qualified that point is mute. Taxpayes much waste tens of millions of dollars on this scenario. Mr. John Doe is an extremely average or below average student from a working class family. He has little interest in college and really cant handle college level work but he doesnt know what he wants to do so he applies. He gets finacial aid and barely squeezes into Generic State U. he goes for two years with no interest in actually learning anything or graduating, but he is having a good time and his friends are there and his family is proud of him. After two years he realizes it isnt working or he gets kicked out. He goes to learn a trade or whatever, which is probbaly what he should have been doing all along. Now we have wasted two years of finacial aid on someone whe should have never been in college in the first place.

Again I think finances should not be a barrier to college admission, but showing some sort of academic capacity should. Weeding out some people who could barely get through high school should save tax payers plenty and avoid the endowment spending issue. Am I crazy? Sorry if you got all D's in high schoiol you shouldnt be in college. IF you have the desire go to Junior College and get respectable grades then go from there.

[danefan]

You make some very interesting points, and I will word what I am about say carefully. Too many unqualified people attend college, making even the lowest tier colleges more selective wouldnt be a bad thing. College isnt a right but a privlidge that should be afforded to qualifies applicants. Now I also believe no one should have to go without college because they cant afford it, but if there not qualified that point is mute. Taxpayes much waste tens of millions of dollars on this scenario. Mr. John Doe is an extremely average or below average student from a working class family. He has little interest in college and really cant handle college level work but he doesnt know what he wants to do so he applies. He gets finacial aid and barely squeezes into Generic State U. he goes for two years with no interest in actually learning anything or graduating, but he is having a good time and his friends are there and his family is proud of him. After two years he realizes it isnt working or he gets kicked out. He goes to learn a trade or whatever, which is probbaly what he should have been doing all along. Now we have wasted two years of finacial aid on someone whe should have never been in college in the first place.

Again I think finances should not be a barrier to college admission, but showing some sort of academic capacity should. Weeding out some people who could barely get through high school should save tax payers plenty and avoid the endowment spending issue. Am I crazy? Sorry if you got all D's in high schoiol you shouldnt be in college. IF you have the desire go to Junior College and get respectable grades then go from there.

I sort of agree with you, but then again there are probably thousands of success stories of below average students becoming very productive members of society after being given a chance to attend college.

[Franks Tanks]

I sort of agree with you, but then again there are probably thousands of success stories of below average students becoming very productive members of society after being given a chance to attend college.

I agree 100% with that. They have the desire to go to college however and become competent students and valuable members of society. We need perhaps some sort of financial responsibility for the "at risk" kids to ensure that want to attend. For example if your high school credentials are below a certain point you only get a certain amount offunding or must pay back funding if you dont reach a certain performance level. Granted this performance level should be very low, but we need some sort of incentive and filter that can weed out some of these kids with no desire. I also understand some people with desire will fail miserably as well for a variety of reasons. Either they just dont have the mental capacity, difficult homelife, or other reason entirely. Ok so this probably wont work in practice, but I just get the general feeling that many folks in college have no business being there.

[MplsBison]

Weeding out some people who could barely get through high school should save tax payers plenty and avoid the endowment spending issue. Am I crazy?


Wouldn't it be easier to add an apptitude component into the financial aid application process?


That way, if an average kid gets accepted into college and his parents pay out of their own pocket, the college doesn't lose out on that money but the taxpayers don't waste it.

[Franks Tanks]

Wouldn't it be easier to add an apptitude component into the financial aid application process?


That way, if an average kid gets accepted into college and his parents pay out of their own pocket, the college doesn't lose out on that money but the taxpayers don't waste it.

That could work-- I would just be concerned about some people from difficult circumstances not getting proper aid as they were uanble to reach there potential in high school. I still think an average kid should of course get aid if he qualifies, its more the below average.

[CCU97]

You make some very interesting points, and I will word what I am about say carefully. Too many unqualified people attend college, making even the lowest tier colleges more selective wouldnt be a bad thing. College isnt a right but a privlidge that should be afforded to qualifies applicants. Now I also believe no one should have to go without college because they cant afford it, but if there not qualified that point is mute. Taxpayes much waste tens of millions of dollars on this scenario. Mr. John Doe is an extremely average or below average student from a working class family. He has little interest in college and really cant handle college level work but he doesnt know what he wants to do so he applies. He gets finacial aid and barely squeezes into Generic State U. he goes for two years with no interest in actually learning anything or graduating, but he is having a good time and his friends are there and his family is proud of him. After two years he realizes it isnt working or he gets kicked out. He goes to learn a trade or whatever, which is probbaly what he should have been doing all along. Now we have wasted two years of finacial aid on someone whe should have never been in college in the first place.

Again I think finances should not be a barrier to college admission, but showing some sort of academic capacity should. Weeding out some people who could barely get through high school should save tax payers plenty and avoid the endowment spending issue. Am I crazy? Sorry if you got all D's in high schoiol you shouldnt be in college. IF you have the desire go to Junior College and get respectable grades then go from there.

Problem with this is that generic U may be a 2-year or tech school to begin with...or a culinary school, beauty school....ect....To take these things away from students who aren't ready would be crazy as it is what will get them jobs....Most 4-year colleges have admissions criteria that will keep most below average students out. This will hurt all schools not just larger ones or generic state colleges....Weeding out students is part of the admission process and those who do make it past may get weeded out at some other point in time....this would eventually create issues with those families that are getting by but just barely and can't save much for college....not the ones who barely get in to begin with(typically uppe class kids who didn't do well and mom and dad are paying anyway)....Lower class and lower middle class students may not even think college is an option because mom and dad haven't even discussed this with them.....upper middle....well they are the ones who get shafted currently anyway(financially) so this wouldn't change much for them....

I don't think every child deserves to go to college....as a matter of fact personally most should go into the millitary for 3-4 years before college so they know what they don't want to do! Plus they would be ready to study and go to school when they arrived instead of party and get lost in having fun.

It would also make going to graduate school next to impossible for most if a school lost Title IV due to this....Unless you were upper class and mom and dad could just hand you 30k+ a year. So we would lose the next generation of college professors, doctors, lawyers, scientist...ect

[CCU97]

Wouldn't it be easier to add an apptitude component into the financial aid application process?


That way, if an average kid gets accepted into college and his parents pay out of their own pocket, the college doesn't lose out on that money but the taxpayers don't waste it.

That is what the SAT/ACT are supposed to do....correct the flaws with them and you have your answer!

However, when it comes to success rate at the undergraduate level it has been proven by multiple studies that the HS GPA is a better factor at determining success in undergrad.

[Ivytalk]

The posts on this thread are FAR too serious!!xnodx xrotatehx

[Franks Tanks]

Problem with this is that generic U may be a 2-year or tech school to begin with...or a culinary school, beauty school....ect....To take these things away from students who aren't ready would be crazy as it is what will get them jobs....Most 4-year colleges have admissions criteria that will keep most below average students out. This will hurt all schools not just larger ones or generic state colleges....Weeding out students is part of the admission process and those who do make it past may get weeded out at some other point in time....this would eventually create issues with those families that are getting by but just barely and can't save much for college....not the ones who barely get in to begin with(typically uppe class kids who didn't do well and mom and dad are paying anyway)....Lower class and lower middle class students may not even think college is an option because mom and dad haven't even discussed this with them.....upper middle....well they are the ones who get shafted currently anyway(financially) so this wouldn't change much for them....

I don't think every child deserves to go to college....as a matter of fact personally most should go into the millitary for 3-4 years before college so they know what they don't want to do! Plus they would be ready to study and go to school when they arrived instead of party and get lost in having fun.

It would also make going to graduate school next to impossible for most if a school lost Title IV due to this....Unless you were upper class and mom and dad could just hand you 30k+ a year. So we would lose the next generation of college professors, doctors, lawyers, scientist...ect

I pretty much agree with you here I think our views are only somewhat different. I believe in a meritocracy,so just because your poor doesnt mean you shouldnt have access to quality education. But perhaps questionable canidates can start at a JC or something to prove they can handle higher education and then recieve funding for university education.

[CCU97]

I agree 100% with that. They have the desire to go to college however and become competent students and valuable members of society. We need perhaps some sort of financial responsibility for the "at risk" kids to ensure that want to attend. For example if your high school credentials are below a certain point you only get a certain amount offunding or must pay back funding if you dont reach a certain performance level. Granted this performance level should be very low, but we need some sort of incentive and filter that can weed out some of these kids with no desire. I also understand some people with desire will fail miserably as well for a variety of reasons. Either they just dont have the mental capacity, difficult homelife, or other reason entirely. Ok so this probably wont work in practice, but I just get the general feeling that many folks in college have no business being there.

This is handled in the form of student loans and parent loans.....as for grants those are based on need....scholarships are typically either merit based or have a need based component but either way actual scholastic achievement has to be shown in order to achieve them at the vast majority of schools.....Most colleges don't give away free money to the worst students....and typically the ownership of payment is on the parent and not the student....for instance....if the family of a freshman has a contribution level of 4100 or higher(determined by the FAFSA) then most likely they will receive only loans. An EFC of 4100 typically is about 35k a year for a family of 3. That means this family of 3 with 35k a year has a child who wants to go to state U. State U cost 8k a year plus room and board of 13k a year totaling 21k. Johnnie can borrow 3,500....the remainder can be borrowed or paid out of pocket by Johnnie's parents. Unless Johnnie scored higher than an 1100 on the SAT he can hang it up...no scholarship money.....17,500 a year that mom and dad have to borrow, beg or steal to send to college for each of the 4 years....if this gone they then have to come up with 21k out of pocket.

[CCU97]

The posts on this thread are FAR too serious!!xnodx xrotatehx

Ivy...it is a pretty serious topic...It was written about in the WSJ and many various educational publications...It something that even if you don't have kids or never will still plays an impact on your life....we have enough stupid people in this world....to willingly place more of them out there would just be insane!

[Franks Tanks]

This is handled in the form of student loans and parent loans.....as for grants those are based on need....scholarships are typically either merit based or have a need based component but either way actual scholastic achievement has to be shown in order to achieve them at the vast majority of schools.....Most colleges don't give away free money to the worst students....and typically the ownership of payment is on the parent and not the student....for instance....if the family of a freshman has a contribution level of 4100 or higher(determined by the FAFSA) then most likely they will receive only loans. An EFC of 4100 typically is about 35k a year for a family of 3. That means this family of 3 with 35k a year has a child who wants to go to state U. State U cost 8k a year plus room and board of 13k a year totaling 21k. Johnnie can borrow 3,500....the remainder can be borrowed or paid out of pocket by Johnnie's parents. Unless Johnnie scored higher than an 1100 on the SAT he can hang it up...no scholarship money.....17,500 a year that mom and dad have to borrow, beg or steal to send to college for each of the 4 years....if this gone they then have to come up with 21k out of pocket.

That is a poor seanrio. I would hope that a family in that situation would get some sort of aid!! Thats not the case as you described, but that is a perfect canidate for assistance in my book. Smart, but not overly so and needs aid!

[bulldog10jw]

One thing is for sure. Yale won't be spending any of its endowment willingly. You would have an easier time getting money out of Scrooge than you would out of Yale. Yale has a fundraiser when they need coffee for the administration building.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

One thing is for sure. Yale won't be spending any of its endowment willingly. You would have an easier time getting money out of Scrooge than you would out of Yale. Yale has a fundraiser when they need coffee for the administration building.

Agreed. Maybe someday they can afford to sponsor their cheerleading team and have them come on away games. xlolx

(Seriously, they don't!)

[danefan]

Why is Yale so stingy? Seems to me that they could probably spend a ton of money on just about everything and still not dip into the endowment itself.

[CCU97]

This is handled in the form of student loans and parent loans.....as for grants those are based on need....scholarships are typically either merit based or have a need based component but either way actual scholastic achievement has to be shown in order to achieve them at the vast majority of schools.....Most colleges don't give away free money to the worst students....and typically the ownership of payment is on the parent and not the student....for instance....if the family of a freshman has a contribution level of 4100 or higher(determined by the FAFSA) then most likely they will receive only loans. An EFC of 4100 typically is about 35k a year for a family of 3. That means this family of 3 with 35k a year has a child who wants to go to state U. State U cost 8k a year plus room and board of 13k a year totaling 21k. Johnnie can borrow 3,500....the remainder can be borrowed or paid out of pocket by Johnnie's parents. Unless Johnnie scored higher than an 1100 on the SAT he can hang it up...no scholarship money.....17,500 a year that mom and dad have to borrow, beg or steal to send to college for each of the 4 years....if this gone they then have to come up with 21k out of pocket.


That is a poor seanrio. I would hope that a family in that situation would get some sort of aid!! Thats not the case as you described, but that is a perfect canidate for assistance in my book. Smart, but not overly so and needs aid!


You can change the scenario to 900 SAT...the SAT score wouldn't matter.....The family shows that the need is there just not enough....The feds say sorry we can't help....the school says sorry....it happens...I see it all the time....We could even use a family making 100k a year and 2 kids in college....unless you are below the pobverty line or score high on the SAT/ACT the money isn't there like you guys think...loans are but how can mom and dad take out these loans....I have an aunt an uncle that sent their daughter to Clemson and 80k and 4 yrs later she has a degree and they will work for another 20 years to pay it off...and they make about 100k together in a rural area....

[Ivytalk]

One thing is for sure. Yale won't be spending any of its endowment willingly. You would have an easier time getting money out of Scrooge than you would out of Yale. Yale has a fundraiser when they need coffee for the administration building.

bulldog, at $25 BILL, that's a mighty expensive espresso!:D

[Franks Tanks]

You can change the scenario to 900 SAT...the SAT score wouldn't matter.....The family shows that the need is there just not enough....The feds say sorry we can't help....the school says sorry....it happens...I see it all the time....We could even use a family making 100k a year and 2 kids in college....unless you are below the pobverty line or score high on the SAT/ACT the money isn't there like you guys think...loans are but how can mom and dad take out these loans....I have an aunt an uncle that sent their daughter to Clemson and 80k and 4 yrs later she has a degree and they will work for another 20 years to pay it off...and they make about 100k together in a rural area....

Like you said its really the middle class kid who is a solid but not great student that gets squeezed. Youve been very informative on this issue...thanks.

[DUPFLFan]

He is right on one point - Ivy League educations are for the Rich and the Poor. Middle class need not apply... Both Harvard and Brown recruited my son. I would have had to pay the whole freight...

[MplsBison]

That could work-- I would just be concerned about some people from difficult circumstances not getting proper aid as they were uanble to reach there potential in high school. I still think an average kid should of course get aid if he qualifies, its more the below average.

So tell me what you want to have happen to these hypothetical students:

The 2 parameters are level of expected aid from family (high, medium, low) and ACT scores (high, medium, low) for a total of 9 combinations: HH,HM,HL,MH,MM,ML,LH,LM and LL (where, for example, MH represents a student whose expected aid from family is medium and has high scores on his ACT).

Without question I think we can agree that LH should qualify and get federal aid.

And, without doubt, I think we agree that HL should not qualify and get federal aid.


So what about the other 7?

[MplsBison]

That is what the SAT/ACT are supposed to do....correct the flaws with them and you have your answer!

Show me where you input your ACT scores on the FAFSA.


I don't believe there is such a component in the application.



Which is why I proposed it. IE, a student who attempts to apply for federal aid but does not show potential to succeed in college would be denied the aid.



However, when it comes to success rate at the undergraduate level it has been proven by multiple studies that the HS GPA is a better factor at determining success in undergrad.

I wouldn't contest that.


Use whatever parameter you want so long as it gives taxpayers a fair measure of a student's potential to succeed in college study.

[CCU97]

So tell me what you want to have happen to these hypothetical students:

The 2 parameters are level of expected aid from family (high, medium, low) and ACT scores (high, medium, low) for a total of 9 combinations: HH,HM,HL,MH,MM,ML,LH,LM and LL (where, for example, MH represents a student whose expected aid from family is medium and has high scores on his ACT).

Without question I think we can agree that LH should qualify and get federal aid.

And, without doubt, I think we agree that HL should not qualify and get federal aid.


So what about the other 7?

Currently the way that scholarships are set up at most schools these students will get scholarships.....HH, MH, LH...if it is an in-state public school then in-state students who are HM, MM, and LM will most likely get scholarships except for the bottom portion....the HL and ML if admitted will get nothing but loans...and the LL if admitted will get grants to help out.

When I worked at the College of Charleston....our scholarships were awarded all the way down to in-state...1050SAT...3.5 HS GPA....now it was only $1000...but that was $1000 of free money for them....As for the out of state student it went down to 1200SAT..... 3.0 GPA for $500 and in state tuition.....

The reasonable amount of a school's endowment that should be spent is 5%...the thought process behind this is that in a low year with conservative investments that is what you could expect to return on the money...Plus, most endowments are set up legally where you can't touch the principle. So for every $1,000,000.00 that a school has in their endowment they should spend $50,000.00 per year in scholarships. That doesn't include non-endowed gifts. The other factor that the federal government isn't considering....restrictions set by donors....say I give CCU 1 million...I can actually tell them that I want the scholarship to go to a left handed twin from Horry County who has need and is an art history major. They probably will not find too many students that fit that criteria each year....We had scholarships for Students from China who were Computer Science majors...and even one for a female student from Spartanburg County who was an Education major and in Alpha Delta Pi....Unfortunately in order to award these funds in any other way you must contact the donor and request in writing that the funds can be used differently than how they wished....some have passed away long ago and can no longer be reached without a medium....lol

There are also unrestricted and annual funds which are spent in full each year.... Oh and Forgone Revenue(tuition discounting).....

[CCU97]

Show me where you input your ACT scores on the FAFSA.


I don't believe there is such a component in the application.



Which is why I proposed it. IE, a student who attempts to apply for federal aid but does not show potential to succeed in college would be denied the aid.




I wouldn't contest that.


Use whatever parameter you want so long as it gives taxpayers a fair measure of a student's potential to succeed in college study.

That is what the college admissions offices should be doing....not just letting every idiot into their schools....now a 2-year or tech school is different and should have lower standards.....

[AlphaSigMD]

It does bring up a good point though, about being from the middle class and being limited in the scope of search as far as colleges go.

I grew up in a great middle class family, so of course I never qualified for need-based scholarships. So I had to make the decision early: do you want to go to medical school or do you want to go to a private undergrad program, because there's not enough money to do both. So I took the scholarships to ASU instead of paying to go to Duke or Davidson.

It would be nice to see everyone have a fair chance at pulling down some of these spots, not just the two polar ends of the SES brackets. The schools may see that some of their best and most industrious talent might come from the middle class.

And taking this all back to football, maybe some of these programs would similarly benefit from having the 1 in a 100 or 1 in a 1000 middle class players that could qualify both academically and physically for the Ivy’s football teams. What an asset to have as a potential leader on the team. In truth, is there anyone more qualified?

That being said, you don't have to go to Harvard or Yale to succeed in life or on the football field. A great deal of my medical school class was from the Ivy's, (so obviously it helps) but none of them were vastly better prepared than I after graduating Appalachian State.

[blukeys]

They are also hindered by academic restrictions and of course have trouble recruiting because of the whole war issue.


I have sat in on interviews for service academy appointments. There is no shortage of qualified applicants to any of the service academies.

The majority of applicants do not get an appointment and yet all of their credentials are extraordinary. I was usually in awe of these kids that apply to our service academies. Their accomplishments achieved at a such a tender age I found inspiring.

Any and all who met these kids came away pleased that those who will be commanding in our armed forces are some of the finest people in our nation.

[MplsBison]

Currently the way that scholarships are set up at most schools these students will get scholarships.....HH, MH, LH...if it is an in-state public school then in-state students who are HM, MM, and LM will most likely get scholarships except for the bottom portion....the HL and ML if admitted will get nothing but loans...and the LL if admitted will get grants to help out.

When I worked at the College of Charleston....our scholarships were awarded all the way down to in-state...1050SAT...3.5 HS GPA....now it was only $1000...but that was $1000 of free money for them....As for the out of state student it went down to 1200SAT..... 3.0 GPA for $500 and in state tuition.....

The reasonable amount of a school's endowment that should be spent is 5%...the thought process behind this is that in a low year with conservative investments that is what you could expect to return on the money...Plus, most endowments are set up legally where you can't touch the principle. So for every $1,000,000.00 that a school has in their endowment they should spend $50,000.00 per year in scholarships. That doesn't include non-endowed gifts. The other factor that the federal government isn't considering....restrictions set by donors....say I give CCU 1 million...I can actually tell them that I want the scholarship to go to a left handed twin from Horry County who has need and is an art history major. They probably will not find too many students that fit that criteria each year....We had scholarships for Students from China who were Computer Science majors...and even one for a female student from Spartanburg County who was an Education major and in Alpha Delta Pi....Unfortunately in order to award these funds in any other way you must contact the donor and request in writing that the funds can be used differently than how they wished....some have passed away long ago and can no longer be reached without a medium....lol

There are also unrestricted and annual funds which are spent in full each year.... Oh and Forgone Revenue(tuition discounting).....

I appreciate the information on what the system is doing currently.


I don't know if you realize this, but the discussion is on how the system should be. Not how it is.

[MplsBison]

That is what the college admissions offices should be doing....not just letting every idiot into their schools....now a 2-year or tech school is different and should have lower standards.....


But, as a taxpayer, I don't agree that it should be placed in the hands of college admissions offices.

Not when they have their quotas on student enrollment to fill.



The restrictions on who should qualify for federal financial aid should be in federal control and the protocols should be applied in the application process, not the admissions process.

[Franks Tanks]

I have sat in on interviews for service academy appointments. There is no shortage of qualified applicants to any of the service academies.

The majority of applicants do not get an appointment and yet all of their credentials are extraordinary. I was usually in awe of these kids that apply to our service academies. Their accomplishments achieved at a such a tender age I found inspiring.

Any and all who met these kids came away pleased that those who will be commanding in our armed forces are some of the finest people in our nation.

Yes but this combination and the ability to play D-I football is very rare. Lets face it most high level FBS recruits wouldnt have a chance in hell of getting in, and the very few who are smart and high level prospects many times are scraed on the military commitment.They end up at Notre Dame, Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, etc not usually the Service Academies. Most service academies have FCS level talent with a few higher level guys thrown in. They can compete because the service academy players are smarter, better conditioned, more disciplined, and more motivated that there competition typically. Without these factors they would get slaughtered

[MplsBison]

It would be nice to see everyone have a fair chance at pulling down some of these spots, not just the two polar ends of the SES brackets.

But such is life.


Colleges ideally want to admit the richest so as to increase the chance of large donations.


Politicians ideally want to help the poorest so as to achieve balance.



The middle class is left out in the cold.

[CCU97]

But, as a taxpayer, I don't agree that it should be placed in the hands of college admissions offices.

Not when they have their quotas on student enrollment to fill.



The restrictions on who should qualify for federal financial aid should be in federal control and the protocols should be applied in the application process, not the admissions process.

First and foremost....only proprietary schools have quotas to fill....I have worked at all three types...public, private and propietary....At most colleges it is more important of where the SAT/ACT scores will be than an excact number of bodies to fill the place......

As for determining who should qualify for federal aid....If you base it on SAT/ACT scores you are hurting students who can and do succeed in college....if you do it based on HS GPA the same applies....Each school has a Satisfactory Academic Progress policy that is required by the department of education. Students must meet these guidlines...typically 2.0 GPA and 66% class completion rate in order to receive federal aid. If a student does not make these requirments then they must appeal to a committee and have valid extenuating circumstances in order to receive aid.

As for the discussion being about what it should be....in order to know where it should go you have to have knowledge of where it currently stands.

[CCU97]

As for where federal aid should be....typically you have two view points...one is that we give away too much money (conservative)....the other is that we don't give out enough....

Me personally I fall in the middle.... I think that we give too much away to those who don't need it...and those that really do don't get enough to have real choices.....It also is a matter of parents not saving anything for their kids education and expecting everyone else to pay for it(and I have seen that at all socio-economic levels). What is wrong with a student having to work a couple of years to save up for college before they go....they will know what they don't want to do the rest of their lives and also be a little more mature when they enter college and less likely to waste taxpayer money.

[Franks Tanks]

As for where federal aid should be....typically you have two view points...one is that we give away too much money (conservative)....the other is that we don't give out enough....

Me personally I fall in the middle.... I think that we give too much away to those who don't need it...and those that really do don't get enough to have real choices.....It also is a matter of parents not saving anything for their kids education and expecting everyone else to pay for it(and I have seen that at all socio-economic levels). What is wrong with a student having to work a couple of years to save up for college before they go....they will know what they don't want to do the rest of their lives and also be a little more mature when they enter college and less likely to waste taxpayer money.

So true, If a student has a financial investment in this they will not go if there not ready and certainly wont screw around when there.

[MplsBison]

If you base it on SAT/ACT scores you are hurting students who can and do succeed in college....if you do it based on HS GPA the same applies....


Which is why I've been advocating this entire thread that federal aid should be based on BOTH expected contribution of the family and potential to succeed in college.

[ucdtim17]

There's no reason Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc should still be charging tuition. Free tuition for all is pennies compared to $5 billion income from an endowment - tuition should be one of the first things that money covers. Not only is there no excuse for continuing to allow tuition to rise to unbelievable heights, there's no excuse for not using that endowment money to end tuition. $30,000 tuition for 10,000 students is $300 mil - there's just no excuse for not finding that money with a $20-30 billion endowment.

[ucdtim17]

I would be pissed off if I were at one of those schools and paying tuition

[CCU97]

Which is why I've been advocating this entire thread that federal aid should be based on BOTH expected contribution of the family and potential to succeed in college.

If you base it on need and either of the two above or both you still leave students out that will succeed in college and give money to ones who will not......that was the point of the original post.....There is no perfect system unless funds are disbursed after a semester and based on grades earned.

What you just advocated would help the least amount of people possible....only the poor who test well on standardized tests. As for HS GPA....if that was used you would see grade inflation in HS across the US(even worse than it is done now).

[CCU97]

There's no reason Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc should still be charging tuition. Free tuition for all is pennies compared to $5 billion income from an endowment - tuition should be one of the first things that money covers. Not only is there no excuse for continuing to allow tuition to rise to unbelievable heights, there's no excuse for not using that endowment money to end tuition. $30,000 tuition for 10,000 students is $300 mil - there's just no excuse for not finding that money with a $20-30 billion endowment.


As posted earlier....the funds in these endowments was not given strictly for scholarships. You have to go with the request of the donor. Some of the money is fo buildings....some of it for athletics....some of it for endowed professor positions and chairs of departments...saying a school has X in their endowment doesn't mean it is all available for scholarships....it also doesn't mean they have all of the money yet....lots of people set up trusts and it gives out X amount a year or put the school in their will.

As for being upset if you went there and paid tuition....tell me a good reason you or anyone else should go to Harvard, Yale, or any other school for free? If a student doesn't have ownership in their education they never achieve full potential....I recommend to parents all the time that even if they plan to pay for their childs education...make them borrow the Stafford Loans so that the child has ownership and at least thinks they have to pay money back...especially if they don't put the work in....and when they graduate the parents can pay the loan off.

[ucdtim17]

As posted earlier....the funds in these endowments was not given strictly for scholarships. You have to go with the request of the donor. Some of the money is fo buildings....some of it for athletics....some of it for endowed professor positions and chairs of departments...saying a school has X in their endowment doesn't mean it is all available for scholarships....it also doesn't mean they have all of the money yet....lots of people set up trusts and it gives out X amount a year or put the school in their will.

As for being upset if you went there and paid tuition....tell me a good reason you or anyone else should go to Harvard, Yale, or any other school for free? If a student doesn't have ownership in their education they never achieve full potential....I recommend to parents all the time that even if they plan to pay for their childs education...make them borrow the Stafford Loans so that the child has ownership and at least thinks they have to pay money back...especially if they don't put the work in....and when they graduate the parents can pay the loan off.


Was most of it given with the explicit direction to *not* be used for scholarships? I gotta think most of it either doesn't have strings attached or is to be used for scholarships. I also gotta think alumni would love to see their money used to end tuition.

I would be pissed off for the reasons I already mentioned - having $3-5 billion a year in pure interest income and still making me pay would be indefensible. I can't fathom how they can find ways to spend all that money without taking huge bites out of the tuition bill for everyone. There are plenty of people on scholarship who do fine in and after college without having "ownership" of their education (the bill)