Pochsy wrote:
But he went to Harvard didn't he? My cousin goes there and is sporting a cool $60,000 bill at the end of each year.
The only way he could be sporting a $60,000 bill (its $52,000 estimated COA for 2008-2009, which includes expenses not directly billed) is if he was rich enough to make that price less than painful on his family's long term finances. Their institutional financial aid is the best in the world, and most kids whose families make under $200,000 a year are having more than 50% of their costs paid for by the college itself.
I know so many smart kids that get into Ivy League schools like Harvard, U Penn, Cornell etc and get accepted, but didn't go, why? Money. Then they have to go to state colleges since its cheaper and they recieved a scholarship.
Not every parent is rich enough to send their smart ass kid to a good school yo.
The only one of these schools that should make finances a hindrance to attendance is Cornell, and barely. Maybe the parents didn't want to pay what they were expected to pay, and opted instead for a state-school scholarship, but that doesn't mean money precluded them from attending the Ivy League school of their dreams.
My parents are by no means rich - although not poor. I was accepted into a college as good as those listed above, and I will be able to easily attend. They will be paying less than $5000 a year, and the total cost will be less than $10000 from us together. I couldn't dream of attending such a school if I received no aid. Yet, I did, and will be able to. This isn't the 1970s anymore, where such schools were mostly for the rich (as I've been told, smart Californians in that age went to UC Berkeley if they were poor, and Stanford if they were rich). At least in the US, it is very clear to most families that such schools are affordable, and in fact, its one of the reasons the overachievers we all know have become so prominent; applicants, that is, to these colleges have increased in number because of the aid programs, and as an example, it was the only reason I applied to them.
From a philosophical viewpoint, though, the government should pay to some degree, since the investment in education for people leads to long-run economic growth, which helps better society as a whole. It is a more delayed stimulus than direct spending, but still one that is worthy, and perhaps for fair in its distribution of social wealth.
