Harvard's new aid plan

[Trotsky]

Honestly, it sounds great.

[Scersk '97]

One always wonders about these "magic" cutoff points, though.  What's so different between the family with an "income level" of $180,001 that gets to pay $30,360 in tuition and that with a level of $180,000 that gets to pay $17,500?  I would find a way to chop a few bucks off the ol' income pretty fast.  Basically, if a sliding scale was OK for $60,000 to $120,000, why wasn't it good for above $180,000?  I'll never understand those types of discontinuities.  (Don't even get me started on the idea of tax "brackets," a completely outmoded concept for the computer age.)

But, yeah, otherwise, it looks like Harvard is going to be stealing a lot more students who will pay a lot less for college away from the Michigans (and the Cornells) of the world.  Looks like a good plan for Harvard and those students.  The publics likely cannot respond:  can Cornell?  I wouldn't think so.  Let's hope that Cornell grads of the 50s and 60s made boatloads of money and are willing to part with it.

(Completely offhand:  isn't this all a bit reminiscent of, I don't know, Reagan and Russia in the 80s?  Talk about an Evil Empire...)

[Beeeej]

[quote Scersk '97]But, yeah, otherwise, it looks like Harvard is going to be stealing a lot more students who will pay a lot less for college away from the Michigans (and the Cornells) of the world.  Looks like a good plan for Harvard and those students.  The publics likely cannot respond:  can Cornell?  I wouldn't think so.  Let's hope that Cornell grads of the 50s and 60s made boatloads of money and are willing to part with it.[/quote]

Well, I gather that's one of the key goals of the current enormous fundraising campaign at Cornell - student aid endowment, to increase Cornell's capacity to provide grants instead of loans, and to keep tuition increases as low as possible.  It's been getting better for years, but in baby steps.

One of the great difficulties is that a much higher percentage of Cornellians than other Ivies' alumni were first in their family to go to college (particularly CALS alums), and may not recognize the importance of giving back, or even feel they're capable of giving back.  But there's no question it would help if more of the people who are capable of giving back did so.  My tuition was about 60% of what it would've been if alumni hadn't been giving at the time, so I try to do my part for the current students, and maybe they'll step up when it's their turn, too.

[jdonofrio]

Cornell would never do that. They like money too much as they nickel and dime us for everything. I especially love the $29 charge per hour if you are in the dorm after 2pm Dec 15.

[Beeeej]

[quote jdonofrio]Cornell would never do that. They like money too much as they nickel and dime us for everything. I especially love the $29 charge per hour if you are in the dorm after 2pm Dec 15.[/quote]

And they couldn't possibly have a legitimate reason for that, right?  Liability insurance on unsupervised residents, perhaps?  ::rolleyes::

[Robb]

[quote Beeeej][quote jdonofrio]Cornell would never do that. They like money too much as they nickel and dime us for everything. I especially love the $29 charge per hour if you are in the dorm after 2pm Dec 15.[/quote]

And they couldn't possibly have a legitimate reason for that, right?  Liability insurance on unsupervised residents, perhaps?  ::rolleyes::[/quote]

Well - legitimate is in the eye of the beholder...  

[Robb]

[quote Beeeej]
One of the great difficulties is that a much higher percentage of Cornellians than other Ivies' alumni were first in their family to go to college (particularly CALS alums), and may not recognize the importance of giving back, or even feel they're capable of giving back. [/quote]

I wonder if some of them also feel that they went to a "state" school, so giving isn't as important.  Are there publicly available breakdowns of donation numbers (% participating, total dollars, etc) by colllege?  I'm guessing not.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Scersk '97]One always wonders about these "magic" cutoff points, though.  What's so different between the family with an "income level" of $180,001 that gets to pay $30,360 in tuition and that with a level of $180,000 that gets to pay $17,500?  I would find a way to chop a few bucks off the ol' income pretty fast.[/quote]

You're making an assumption that at $180K all aid ends. The article does not say such a thing. It doesn't address the issue, but it certainly doesn't say that. I would think Harvard would be aware that a big jump at $1 difference would cause all sorts of games and fudging. I'd have to imagine that the sliding scale continues, just not at the 10% rate.

(Don't even get me started on the idea of tax "brackets," a completely outmoded concept for the computer age.)

Hmmm? Tax brackets don't have the discontinuities that you were speaking of. Its only the amount above that bracket's threshold that gets the higher rate, so its a continuous function. Or are you talking about the discontinuities in the rates themselves (and not the dollars paid)? While it is the computer age, many people still do file by hand, and the last thing needed is to make taxes even less understandable for people.

[Robb]

[quote DeltaOne81]
Hmmm? Tax brackets don't have the discontinuities that you were speaking of. Its only the amount above that bracket's threshold that gets the higher rate, so its a continuous function.[/quote]

Well, sure, but it's not continuously differentiable, and that has clearly led to no end of confusion for the average taxpayer!  ::doh::

(yes, I know you said the same thing.  I just wanted to say "continuously differentiable."   )

[ugarte]

[quote Beeeej][/quote]
Doesn't that turn 'shill mode' on?

[quote Beeeej]And they couldn't possibly have a legitimate reason for that, right? Liability insurance on unsupervised residents, perhaps?[/quote]
QED.

[Josh '99]

[quote Scersk '97] Basically, if a sliding scale was OK for $60,000 to $120,000, why wasn't it good for above $180,000?  I'll never understand those types of discontinuities.  (Don't even get me started on the idea of tax "brackets," a completely outmoded concept for the computer age.)[/quote]See also:  Every discussion of the PWR that has ever taken place.

[Beeeej]

[quote Robb][quote Beeeej]
One of the great difficulties is that a much higher percentage of Cornellians than other Ivies' alumni were first in their family to go to college (particularly CALS alums), and may not recognize the importance of giving back, or even feel they're capable of giving back. [/quote]

I wonder if some of them also feel that they went to a "state" school, so giving isn't as important.  Are there publicly available breakdowns of donation numbers (% participating, total dollars, etc) by colllege?  I'm guessing not.[/quote]

I actually think it probably is publicly available.  But I can tell you right now, there's no mystery to it, the state-assisted undergraduate colleges do have a significantly lower participation rate.  I don't recall whether that also translates into lower dollars per gift, but I believe it translates into lower total dollars.

[KeithK]

[quote Beeeej][quote Robb][quote Beeeej]
One of the great difficulties is that a much higher percentage of Cornellians than other Ivies' alumni were first in their family to go to college (particularly CALS alums), and may not recognize the importance of giving back, or even feel they're capable of giving back. [/quote]

I wonder if some of them also feel that they went to a "state" school, so giving isn't as important.  Are there publicly available breakdowns of donation numbers (% participating, total dollars, etc) by colllege?  I'm guessing not.[/quote]

I actually think it probably is publicly available.  But I can tell you right now, there's no mystery to it, the state-assisted undergraduate colleges do have a significantly lower participation rate.  I don't recall whether that also translates into lower dollars per gift, but I believe it translates into lower total dollars.[/quote]
Well then lets kick out those CALS bums!!!  They don't contribute anyway!!!  Oh wait, we need to at least keep AgEc for the hockey players.... :-D.

[Scersk '97]

[quote Robb][quote DeltaOne81]
Hmmm? Tax brackets don't have the discontinuities that you were speaking of. Its only the amount above that bracket's threshold that gets the higher rate, so its a continuous function.[/quote]

Well, sure, but it's not continuously differentiable, and that has clearly led to no end of confusion for the average taxpayer!  ::doh::

(yes, I know you said the same thing.  I just wanted to say "continuously differentiable."   )[/quote]

Well, no, continuous and continuously differentiable aren't the same thing.  I do want smooth functions...  We've got, what, six tax brackets now?  I guess that's a bit smoother than three, but it still seems screwy to me.  

Why don't we just choose some nice exponential function and be done with it...  ::whistle::

[Robb]

[quote Scersk '97][quote Robb][quote DeltaOne81]
Hmmm? Tax brackets don't have the discontinuities that you were speaking of. Its only the amount above that bracket's threshold that gets the higher rate, so its a continuous function.[/quote]

Well, sure, but it's not continuously differentiable, and that has clearly led to no end of confusion for the average taxpayer!  ::doh::

(yes, I know you said the same thing.  I just wanted to say "continuously differentiable."   )[/quote]

Well, no, continuous and continuously differentiable aren't the same thing.  I do want smooth functions...  We've got, what, six tax brackets now?  I guess that's a bit smoother than three, but it still seems screwy to me.  

Why don't we just choose some nice exponential function and be done with it...  ::whistle::[/quote]

I know they're not the same thing.  That's why I said "Sure (meaning I agreed with DeltaOne's statement that it was a continuous function), but (meaning in contrast) it's not continuously differentiable."

When I said that DeltaOne and I had said the same thing, I was referring to his comment that the rates were discontinuous, which is the same thing as saying the function isn't continuously differentiable.