Thanks for your comment - it's great to get some real insight here.
#1 and #2 raise a lot of questions and I'd love to hammer it out a bit more.
Total financial aid is increasing (#1), but that makes sense given that the number of low-income students is also increasing (#2).
The better metric is financial aid per low-income student (not just per student, since that is also expected to increase given that low-income is a higher percentage of the class each year). Is that number increasing year over year? If so, shouldn't that lead to a decrease in tuition, not an increase?
---
At my university, I'm convinced #3 is the real driver of tuition increase. The number of administrators and staff is increasing spectacularly, but from the student perspective, it's not helping anyone but instead increasing frustration (e.g. if there's a problem, we're stuck escalating through more people until we reach a Dean who can actually do something). Thoughts?
#1 is essentially third-degree price discrimination. College tuition is effectively "sliding scale" with wealthiest students pay full sticker price and poor students paying little or nothing
You forget that most wealthy people do not have a "direct" income and have the ability to redirect tax obligations. So, like in Europe, most wealthy students have a very strong case that they're really poor : just look at their tax statements, nothing on there. Never mind the BMW.
(In Europe anyone who is a kid of a company director or some such who is paid mostly in options or company shares to a "management company" effectively earns nothing. Sometimes their income is a loan with the management company as collateral. This enables them to get a full scholarship financial aid for their kids university education)
so that would imply that college is then made affordable to both low income students and wealthy students alike since they can hide their assets. what a bonanza!
#1 and #2 raise a lot of questions and I'd love to hammer it out a bit more.
Total financial aid is increasing (#1), but that makes sense given that the number of low-income students is also increasing (#2).
The better metric is financial aid per low-income student (not just per student, since that is also expected to increase given that low-income is a higher percentage of the class each year). Is that number increasing year over year? If so, shouldn't that lead to a decrease in tuition, not an increase?
---
At my university, I'm convinced #3 is the real driver of tuition increase. The number of administrators and staff is increasing spectacularly, but from the student perspective, it's not helping anyone but instead increasing frustration (e.g. if there's a problem, we're stuck escalating through more people until we reach a Dean who can actually do something). Thoughts?