121–130 of 487 posts
>Newly expanded financial aid will cover tuition costs for admitted students from 80 percent of U.S. families. What percentage of MIT students... Two teachers in a HCOL city are going to be above 200k.
> 58% of full-time undergraduates received [some form of] MIT Scholarship [but not necessarily a full one] during the 2023–2024 academic year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the price you have to pay for something dependent on how much money your parents make? Feels so unfair
Because it is really a discount to the parents, not the student. It is understood that few 17 year olds have saved enough money to pay MIT's tuition of $85k/year for 4 years and parents are usually footing the bill. Yes, students who's parents have money but choose not to spend it get a rough deal. You can make a pretty strong case that it is their parents screwing them over, not the school. The school doesn't owe a…
No you can't. The school is the one choosing to set their prices based on the parents, who might or might not have anything to do with the student's school budget. That is the school's faulty assumption, and they, not the parents, are the ones screwing over those students.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Because education is largely an afterthought, and universities primarily compete on entertainment and prestige. High cost and exclusivity is the entire point. A university open to all with a fraction of the price would be a poorly ranked one in every competitive measure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
still seems weird to me. is there any other product for 18-22 year olds where the price changes depending on their parents wealth?
Interesting question. I can't think of anything outside of the education sphere, no. Maybe someone else will chime in with an example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Because America is a place where people have been indoctrinated to believe that misery is the cost of freedom. It's a place where half the population would rather read your obituary or donate to your fundraiser than simply have a healthcare system that people can use in a timely manner without worrying about cost.
Sorry for my ranting, I just cannot believe what is still happening.
When I was touring colleges as a high school senior I met someone who had gotten into MIT but whose family could only afford to send one kid to an elite college, him or his sister. He decided to go to a state school which was a lot less expensive but whose academics weren't close to the same level. This stuff matters to people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the entire point of these assessments to look at total assets, and not just annual income? I dont think this was an oversight or mistake. I think the expectation was that yes, people should sell assets if they have them .
The "mistake" is that the assets themselves are the source of income. Sell them off, and the income goes away too. It's the equivalent of expecting the parents to use 100% of their income to put their kids into college, which is impossible.
If the business is worth enough then selling it can replace all the income you would have ever gotten from it. It's not as simple as "income goes away". The specific numbers make all the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So if a university has money, learning there should be free? Not an unreasonable proposition. The purpose of the university is ostensibly to provide an education, not to continue hoarding more and more money.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting question. I can't think of anything outside of the education sphere, no. Maybe someone else will chime in with an example.
I would argue that financing a purchase (say, a house or car) falls into this category. The object itself does not change price, but the financing will change price wildly depending on whether the parents have good credit and can cosign the loan.
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…
When I looked at MIT in 1990, tuition was fully covered but housing was BRUTAL. More than twice my parents mortgage. I'm sure it's worse, now.