Why?
Left field
This may be a bit out of left field, but after many years on the road from Brunswick [fn 1] I may have signed a few prospects, to answer the question that I posted in February, 2006, to wit: “Why has Princeton not eliminated tuition?” First prospect, if tuition were eliminated students would not need to take advantage of outside resources (primarily federal student aid), and Princeton believes that it is entitled to a share of those resources. Second, Princeton’s endowment may include gifts that are restricted to payment of student tuitions, and restructuring those gifts might be troublesome. Third, elimination of tuition at Princeton would put pressure on other schools to follow suit, or, if unable to do so, to limit tuition as much as possible, and that would make Princeton administrators unpopular in academic circles. If there’s any game in these prospects, why not simply require all students (without regard to “need”) to apply for federal aid (file the federal forms), receive an “SAR” (student aid report), and obtain all available outside funding. Then Princeton, while keeping its nominal tuition in line with other schools, could provide on-campus work assignments and grants (including grants from restricted endowment gifts) totaling the difference between the student’s aggregate outside aid and Princeton’s nominal tuition? Tuition thereby would be eliminated, but Princeton still could pocket its share of available outside funding and avoid the displeasure of other schools, or at least lessen it. Princeton’s effective elimination of tuition quickly would become notorious, so there would be some displeasure, but not much, especially when weighed against the obvious benefits for Princeton and its students [fn 2].
---------------------------------------------
[fn 1] Georgia, not New Jersey. There were Cardinals in the spring, not cows all year.
[fn 2] Consider the perplexing story of Princeton being penalized by the NCAA because an unnamed alum paid $33,000 to defray tuition and book expenses of an unnamed Princeton woman tennis player. [PAW 10-13-10] For the net expenses of that student to have been that large, her family must have had a substantial income. However, I suspect that the player and her family would have been spared the costs of a college education if they had accepted an athletic scholarship at a school whose aid is not “need-based”, and I also suspect that the alum was attempting to combat that unfortunate conflict between athletic and “need-based” scholarships. The conflict is “unfortunate” because athletic scholarships are as indefensible as the rule against hiring (openly paying) collegiate football players, but in the case of Princeton the conflict also is entirely avoidable and unnecessary, because if tuition simply were eliminated there would be no conflict—wealthy athletes, poor athletes, non-athletes—no tuition for any of them.
This may be a bit out of left field, but after many years on the road from Brunswick [fn 1] I may have signed a few prospects, to answer the question that I posted in February, 2006, to wit: “Why has Princeton not eliminated tuition?” First prospect, if tuition were eliminated students would not need to take advantage of outside resources (primarily federal student aid), and Princeton believes that it is entitled to a share of those resources. Second, Princeton’s endowment may include gifts that are restricted to payment of student tuitions, and restructuring those gifts might be troublesome. Third, elimination of tuition at Princeton would put pressure on other schools to follow suit, or, if unable to do so, to limit tuition as much as possible, and that would make Princeton administrators unpopular in academic circles. If there’s any game in these prospects, why not simply require all students (without regard to “need”) to apply for federal aid (file the federal forms), receive an “SAR” (student aid report), and obtain all available outside funding. Then Princeton, while keeping its nominal tuition in line with other schools, could provide on-campus work assignments and grants (including grants from restricted endowment gifts) totaling the difference between the student’s aggregate outside aid and Princeton’s nominal tuition? Tuition thereby would be eliminated, but Princeton still could pocket its share of available outside funding and avoid the displeasure of other schools, or at least lessen it. Princeton’s effective elimination of tuition quickly would become notorious, so there would be some displeasure, but not much, especially when weighed against the obvious benefits for Princeton and its students [fn 2].
---------------------------------------------
[fn 1] Georgia, not New Jersey. There were Cardinals in the spring, not cows all year.
[fn 2] Consider the perplexing story of Princeton being penalized by the NCAA because an unnamed alum paid $33,000 to defray tuition and book expenses of an unnamed Princeton woman tennis player. [PAW 10-13-10] For the net expenses of that student to have been that large, her family must have had a substantial income. However, I suspect that the player and her family would have been spared the costs of a college education if they had accepted an athletic scholarship at a school whose aid is not “need-based”, and I also suspect that the alum was attempting to combat that unfortunate conflict between athletic and “need-based” scholarships. The conflict is “unfortunate” because athletic scholarships are as indefensible as the rule against hiring (openly paying) collegiate football players, but in the case of Princeton the conflict also is entirely avoidable and unnecessary, because if tuition simply were eliminated there would be no conflict—wealthy athletes, poor athletes, non-athletes—no tuition for any of them.
posted by mcd at 4:12 PM
0 comments
