3 ms·

Keep in mind that these are Ivy League universities hoping to attract the best students they can in order to boost their prestige. If Princeton for instance de

Keep in mind that these are Ivy League universities hoping to attract the best students they can in order to boost their prestige. If Princeton for instance decided to lower tuition fees by cutting down on 'luxuries' like smaller class sizes/ unrestricted enrollments in classes, then they'd lose out on the best students to Harvard or Yale. So the only way to reduce tuition fees would be to do it across the board at once, but the richer universities have no incentive to do so because they can attract enough full-paying students and have a large enough endowment to pay for everyone else.

creatornator 9y ago
That seems... backwards. If the standard of admission remains the same (which is unrelated to cost of attending), lowering prices doesn't decrease the quality of the admitted student body, but _increases_ it. Lowering the cost means that additionally to the students who would be admitted and are capable of affording the school, students who are more qualified but would otherwise _not_ be able to afford attending would then be able to apply and attend. Admissions can only benefit from giving opportunities to a larger body of prospective students. The wealth of a student isn't what gives a school prestige--it's their academic prowess and likelihood of becoming successful later that gives the school a good name.
- njarboe 9y ago
  Wealth of the students family probably has some influence on "likelihood of becoming successful later". Especially if one measures success in how much money people donate to their alma mater.
- 121789 9y ago
  I don't think you're really disagreeing with the parent comment. In order to remain at a constant level of profitability with a price reduction for all students, universities would have to reduce the benefits given to students (e.g., larger class sizes, fewer building upgrades). This would negatively impact the student's likelihood of becoming successful (like you mentioned), and would potentially cause some high-potential students to switch to other schools. Brown is trying to get the best of all worlds: let the rich pay full price to maximize income, invest heavily in students to optimize chances of later success, and subsidize education for less wealthy students to keep the applicant pool as large as possible.
markcerqueira 9y ago
Princeton went about it the way Brown is striving to do now: meet 100% of a student's financial need with grants and no loans. You don't need to lower tuition (and hurt "prestige") if you can do this. > Richer universities have no incentive to do so because they can attract enough full-paying students and have a large enough endowment to pay for everyone else. From personal experience, this statement is wrong. A lot of my classmates at Princeton were not paying the full sticker price. Princeton also has a need-blind admission process so admissions and financial aid are kept (on paper at least) separate.

creatornator 9y ago

That seems... backwards. If the standard of admission remains the same (which is unrelated to cost of attending), lowering prices doesn't decrease the quality of the admitted student body, but _increases_ it. Lowering the cost means that additionally to the students who would be admitted and are capable of affording the school, students who are more qualified but would otherwise _not_ be able to afford attending would then be able to apply and attend. Admissions can only benefit from giving opportunities to a larger body of prospective students. The wealth of a student isn't what gives a school prestige--it's their academic prowess and likelihood of becoming successful later that gives the school a good name.

njarboe 9y ago
Wealth of the students family probably has some influence on "likelihood of becoming successful later". Especially if one measures success in how much money people donate to their alma mater.
121789 9y ago
I don't think you're really disagreeing with the parent comment. In order to remain at a constant level of profitability with a price reduction for all students, universities would have to reduce the benefits given to students (e.g., larger class sizes, fewer building upgrades). This would negatively impact the student's likelihood of becoming successful (like you mentioned), and would potentially cause some high-potential students to switch to other schools. Brown is trying to get the best of all worlds: let the rich pay full price to maximize income, invest heavily in students to optimize chances of later success, and subsidize education for less wealthy students to keep the applicant pool as large as possible.

markcerqueira 9y ago

Princeton went about it the way Brown is striving to do now: meet 100% of a student's financial need with grants and no loans. You don't need to lower tuition (and hurt "prestige") if you can do this. > Richer universities have no incentive to do so because they can attract enough full-paying students and have a large enough endowment to pay for everyone else. From personal experience, this statement is wrong. A lot of my classmates at Princeton were not paying the full sticker price. Princeton also has a need-blind admission process so admissions and financial aid are kept (on paper at least) separate.