4 ms·

>In 2016, the average Brown student graduated with a debt of $23,810... Considering the sticker price for an undergrad at Brown in 2013-2016 is approximately $

>In 2016, the average Brown student graduated with a debt of $23,810... Considering the sticker price for an undergrad at Brown in 2013-2016 is approximately $250K, along with the higher median debt loads we're seeing from graduates of less prestigious, cheaper universities, it leads me to believe that these types of elite schools are comprised of two very specific types of students: 1. Wealthy privileged students whose parents pick up the majority of the cost out of pocket. 2. Students from low-income families who receive almost a full ride via government subsidies, private money (scholarships / grants), and the school itself. Similar to federal and state tax burdens, health care costs, etc., the middle class continues to carry the ever-increasing burden of both the very wealthy and the disenfranchised, while they themselves continue sinking.

joshuamorton 9y ago
3. The school uses a sliding scale of "need based", so middle income students are given some aid. More than very wealthy students, but less than very low income students. The end result is that middle income students pay a similar price to what they might pay in in state tuition at a state school. Why is your first thought that middle-class students are punished, and not that an institute of higher education, full of very smart people, can figure out an equitable way to disperse need based aid?
- hiram112 9y ago
  I will stand corrected if I can find the sliding scale with accurate data fulling explaining the formula. But what I saw myself years ago at school, and currently hear anecdotally, is that most subsidies - from the feds, states, the university, scholarships and grants, etc. - seem to be distributed in a rapidly diminishing fashion instead of linearly (subsidies vs income). In other words, the most poor (or certain minority groups), will get nearly a full ride. The truly wealthy at the other end will get very little, of course. But those in the middle get far less than would be expected if the subsidies were linearly scaled. And so once you earn just a bit more than the most disenfranchised, you don't get much, and instead get saddled with loans.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Which schools are you looking at, anecdotally? Ivies work differently than most other schools by virtue of having larger-than-normal coffers. For example, Harvard's financial aid works in much the way I describe. Families with incomes below 65K pay nothing, those with incomes 65-150K are "expected to pay between 0 and 10% of annual income", and those above that are evaluated on a case by case basis. I'd play around with this[1], and see what you think. For a family of 4 with no liquid assets, you need to be making 265K a year to not get any aid. That puts you solidly out of the middle class anywhere except SV/NY, where I expect you could make an argument about CoL adjustments. [1]: https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculator https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculat...

joshuamorton 9y ago

3. The school uses a sliding scale of "need based", so middle income students are given some aid. More than very wealthy students, but less than very low income students. The end result is that middle income students pay a similar price to what they might pay in in state tuition at a state school. Why is your first thought that middle-class students are punished, and not that an institute of higher education, full of very smart people, can figure out an equitable way to disperse need based aid?

hiram112 9y ago
I will stand corrected if I can find the sliding scale with accurate data fulling explaining the formula. But what I saw myself years ago at school, and currently hear anecdotally, is that most subsidies - from the feds, states, the university, scholarships and grants, etc. - seem to be distributed in a rapidly diminishing fashion instead of linearly (subsidies vs income). In other words, the most poor (or certain minority groups), will get nearly a full ride. The truly wealthy at the other end will get very little, of course. But those in the middle get far less than would be expected if the subsidies were linearly scaled. And so once you earn just a bit more than the most disenfranchised, you don't get much, and instead get saddled with loans.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Which schools are you looking at, anecdotally? Ivies work differently than most other schools by virtue of having larger-than-normal coffers. For example, Harvard's financial aid works in much the way I describe. Families with incomes below 65K pay nothing, those with incomes 65-150K are "expected to pay between 0 and 10% of annual income", and those above that are evaluated on a case by case basis. I'd play around with this[1], and see what you think. For a family of 4 with no liquid assets, you need to be making 265K a year to not get any aid. That puts you solidly out of the middle class anywhere except SV/NY, where I expect you could make an argument about CoL adjustments. [1]: https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculator https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculat...