Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 487 posts

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#81

Post by blackhawkC17 »

dleary wrote: post #51
blackhawkC17 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They were given land and money specifically to serve the public good. Their duty is to deliver education. It's not solving political problems meant for elected officials (and the population at large).

If their duty is to deliver education, why are they sitting on a $20B hoard? Presumably they could spend a little bit of that to deliver some more education, couldn’t they?

They spend $9 billion annually on exactly that. This "hoard" can, checks notes, fund barely two years of operations.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231...

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#82

Post by janalsncm »

araes wrote: post #12

Started looking and found out there's some much worse, and far more obvious cases that need to implement these reforms. [1] UPenn is THE most obvious. Sitting on a $20,000,000,000 endowment fund that went up +170% over 10 years while Philadelphia rots with drug use, poverty, and gun violence. BTW, amazing site to be horrified by gun violence (and vaguely fascinated). Look upon the awfulness of Philadelphia. [2] Sitti…

Is there a coherent argument tying A to B here? Schools have large endowments and are also sometimes located in violent cities. Is it your contention that one causes the other, or even could in theory affect the other? Otherwise I don’t see the point, you might as well bring up the number of potholes in Philadelphia too.

Also Northwestern is in Evanston, not Chicago. Two different cities.

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#83

Post by blackhawkC17 »

tdeck wrote: post #67
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> purpose of the university is ostensibly to provide an education One of the purposes. They’re also centres for learning and research and repositories of knowledge.

If they were spending the money on those things, this might be an argument. But they're not spending it; they're hoarding it.

$9 billion annually [1] qualifies as not spending it, I guess. I wish people actually checked figures before ranting online.

1- https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231...

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#84

Post by pledess »

This may have unintended consequences on chances of a successful application. Now, as a high school senior, you have to compete against an additional pool of strong students who aren't especially interested in MIT's offerings, but have parents pushing them toward the least expensive of all top universities.

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#85

Post by janalsncm »

ciupicri wrote: post #30
araes wrote: post #12

Started looking and found out there's some much worse, and far more obvious cases that need to implement these reforms. [1] UPenn is THE most obvious. Sitting on a $20,000,000,000 endowment fund that went up +170% over 10 years while Philadelphia rots with drug use, poverty, and gun violence. BTW, amazing site to be horrified by gun violence (and vaguely fascinated). Look upon the awfulness of Philadelphia. [2] Sitti…

So if a university has money, learning there should be free? If you don't have guns, you won't have gun violence, but I guess the second amendment won't be changed any time soon.

For a private school, they can choose how to spend their money. Hoarding it is one option.

For the federal government, they can choose how they allocate grants. Withholding grants from greedy schools is one option.

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#86

Post by bobmcnamara »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #47
TheJoeMan wrote: post #32

This is a great step in the right direction. I can't speak directly for MIT, but there are issues with how these programs don't apply to parents with small family businesses. My parents had a small business, with my father taking home a salary of $XX,XXX. Duke University used the business assets to determine the EFC (expected family contribution) of literally 90% of the salary. Essentially saying to sell off the fami…

Why are such things in the US so complicated? Where I live, studying is much much cheaper for most professions,for everyone! That's the only fair way. Also, a set of well educated people pays itself back later in the form of mostly income and added value taxes, which provides money to keep studying for cheap for the next generation.

Roger Freeman, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan's education advisor, was afraid that educated voters would turn the United States towards communism.

One of Ronald Reagan's campaign promises was dismantling or breaking the department of education, similar to what he had done to California's state universities by limiting their budgets and moving the burden of tuition to students.

At the time this was quite popular as it lowered taxes.

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#87

Post by mh- »

changoplatanero wrote: post #74
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s incredibly difficult to structure these rules in a way that doesn’t discriminate against small businesses while not opening a giant loophole for the rich.

Why is the price you have to pay for something dependent on how much money your parents make? Feels so unfair

In my opinion, you're reasoning about it incorrectly.

What if I said: the price is the same for everyone, but people with less access to money get proportionally more assistance paying that price?

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#88

Post by kodt »

bko wrote: post #11

MIT is a great financial investment. There is financing already available (federal and private) so presumably if someone wanted to go they likely could. They may leave with debt however. The median salary of an MIT graduate is 120k and the median debt is 12k, and less for lower income families (2023-2024): $0 - $30,000 family income: $6,866 $30,001 - $75,000 family income: $9,132 $75,000+ family income: $12,500 Bumpi…

I feel like the number of children you have makes a big difference. 1 child vs 5 kids potentially with 2 in college / 3 in private school would be vastly different financial situations.

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#89

Post by myworkinisgood »

itsoktocry wrote: post #56
rs999gti wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UPenn is THE most obvious. Sitting on a $20,000,000,000 endowment fund that went up +170% over 10 years while Philadelphia rots with drug use, poverty, and gun violence. Why is it UPENN's responsibility to solve these issues? This is Philadelphia's problem, the university is just a business operating in the city.

> Why is it UPENN's responsibility to solve these issues? Who's responsibility is it? Have you seen how the government operates? Why wouldn't UPENN want to help solve it?

It is the government's responsibility. Change your government with votes.

Re: Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

#90

Post by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 »

qeternity wrote: post #66
itsoktocry wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it UPENN's responsibility to solve these issues? Who's responsibility is it? Have you seen how the government operates? Why wouldn't UPENN want to help solve it?

You're asking the wrong question: why would they? How much have you contributed to Philly's woes? Probably nothing, because it doesn't benefit you.

> How much have you contributed to Philly's woes?

To resolve Philly's woes?

> Probably nothing, because it doesn't benefit you.

If they pay taxes...

Post reply on HN