3 ms·

Oh I definitely agree with you in principle. I just think that 1) the price tag is inflated in the first place 2) at many income levels that are too high to

• danans 6y ago
  > 1) the price tag is inflated in the first place Inflated relative to what? The cost of providing the education? Or relative to its perceived value? The latter ultimately dictates the price. Perhaps $70k is the point after which really wealthy people say rebel and refuse to send their children there, regardless of how small a portion of their wealth it is? > 2) at many income levels that are too high to qualify for aid, $70k per child per year still really stings I agree, which is why I wonder why the $70k limit for those well above the income level where it stings. Then again, a higher top-level tuition depends a lot on the distribution of very wealthy parents whose kids attend Harvard vs the just upper middle class (there is a large difference between the income/wealth those two groups after all, bigger than between the middle and upper middle-class, given the exponential shape of the wealth distribution curve). And perhaps the very wealthy (let's say in today's terms net worth in the mid 10 millions and up) already make significant donations to the University, so it would be meaningless to raise tuition to i.e. $90k in that case.