So the reason I have been largely absent from ATiM for the last week is because I started the ritual college visits with my oldest daughter, who will be graduating from high school next year. It has been quite an eye opening experience.
QB has frequently commented here about the left-wing academic atmosphere that is pervasive on most college campuses. What struck me during my visits, however, was the degree to which left-wing ideology has taken over the financial aspect of college admissions. College tuition inflation has been the topic of much discussion in recent years, but after this trip I have come to believe that the levels of inflation are hugely exaggerated, and largely a function of a marketing strategy which masks the socialist reality of college fees.
This is perfectly exemplified by the information I was given at the University of Richmond, in Virginia, although this was by no means atypical. For the current school year, tuition, room and board comes to just over $52,000. That is quite a daunting number on it’s face. However, as the university boasts in its info material, 47% of its students qualify for some kind of needs -based financial aid, and that aid (again, as the university itself brags) averages over $38,000 per recipient. So that means that nearly 50% of students are actually paying on average a mere $14k for what is purported to be a $52k education.
This, BTW, includes only needs based financial aid. When students who receive sports or academic merit scholarships are included, a full 70% of students are receiving some form of tuition break, averaging $32,000 in aid per student. So, to sum up, the average cost to the vast majority of students, 70%, is just $20k, while for a select 30%, the cost is over 150% higher at $52k.
How is the “needs based” aid doled out? Here is where the leftist ideology gets quite explicit. At most universities (certainly all of them I visited this past week) the admissions process is proudly proclaimed to be “needs blind”, meaning that ability to pay is not a consideration in the admissions process. Once accepted, parents of the students are then required to submit tax returns, and, based on these returns, the university itself will decide how much the applicant can afford, and the tuition bill to the student will reflect this cost. So in fact the existence of a headline tuition price tag is a complete and utter fabrication, designed to mask the actual system that is in place. There is no actual tuition price tag. Tuition is strictly a function of one’s perceived ability to pay it, or, more accurately, one’s parents perceived ability to pay. It is a system designed so that a select few, in the case of UoR 30%, are used to subsidize/finance the vast majority. It is a classically leftist utopian system.
(One thing I will say in defense of Richmond is that at least it still does offer academic merit scholarships. At Georgetown, I was explicitly told that no such merit scholarships are offered, and only “needs-based” tuition breaks were available. Only my daughter’s stern look telling me to shut up prevented me from sarcastically inquiring whether their sports scholarships were also offered only on strictly a “need” basis.)
Of course, it is no surprise, then, that the headline price tag for tuition (which so few actually pay) continues to rise into the stratosphere. Since ability to pay is no longer necessary to gain access to the product, demand naturally will rise and that demand will derive precisely from those least able to pay. So those who actually are carrying the cost load will necessarily have to pay more and more in order to support this increasing population of non-paying/low-paying demand. Tuition inflation, it seems, is largely a myth for most people, and exists primarily just for a small group of high income earners.
BTW, this whole model seems to be based on the premise that wealthy parents are ready and willing to pay almost any cost to send their kids to college. But suppose a parent simply refuses to? Does an 18 year old with a wealthy but stubborn father have less “right” to financial aid than someone from a low income household? It’s hard to imagine why that would be the case. A father can’t force his 18 year old to vote Republican. He can’t prevent his 18 yr old from getting an abortion. In fact, I am reliably informed that a father cannot even call and get information about his 18 year old from the very university to which he is paying tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition without his 18 yr old’s consent. In other words, an 18 year old is, in virtually all relevant ways, considered to be an independent adult capable of making and responsible for his own decisions. So on what warped reasoning ought an 18 yr old’s cost for a given product be dependent upon his parents’ ability to pay for it?
The whole system seems ripe for an Atlas Shrugged II, in which high income people begin to refuse to pay for their children’s tuition, thus forcing them to apply based on their own income. Since that income will be zero, they certainly ought to qualify for even more aid than anyone else. And the whole despicable system will collapse of it’s own weight.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 56 Comments »
Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
All Things in Moderation 