Dartmouth Eliminates Student Loans for Undergraduates(calltolead.dartmouth.edu)
calltolead.dartmouth.edu
Dartmouth Eliminates Student Loans for Undergraduates
https://calltolead.dartmouth.edu/stories/dartmouth-eliminates-student-loans-undergraduates
52 comments
Sadly, quite a lot of tuition seems to be supporting university employees who simply don't care.
A friend of mine wanted to go to school after working for over a decade. She went to the University of Miami, got to the Continuing Education department and noticed not a single person on duty but a taped piece of paper saying everyone was working remotely due to CoVid. In 2022! Headed on to the location for Undergrad Admissions and was given a website where she could get more info. For a school that charges $65K+ a year.
It happened again at a college in DC where all that she could get was a website versus speaking to an admissions counselor, getting a group tour on some particular date, etc.
Even though about half of the university employees encountered were college students, their attitude of just cashing a paycheck and keeping the seats warm is both a cost and a reflection of the quality of administration.
So much of University tuition now seems to be going to maintain salaries and perks for layers upon layers of employees and administrators versus student benefits.
A friend of mine wanted to go to school after working for over a decade. She went to the University of Miami, got to the Continuing Education department and noticed not a single person on duty but a taped piece of paper saying everyone was working remotely due to CoVid. In 2022! Headed on to the location for Undergrad Admissions and was given a website where she could get more info. For a school that charges $65K+ a year.
It happened again at a college in DC where all that she could get was a website versus speaking to an admissions counselor, getting a group tour on some particular date, etc.
Even though about half of the university employees encountered were college students, their attitude of just cashing a paycheck and keeping the seats warm is both a cost and a reflection of the quality of administration.
So much of University tuition now seems to be going to maintain salaries and perks for layers upon layers of employees and administrators versus student benefits.
I’ve noticed something similar at the company I work for and I think I have an explanation. Basically, upper management doesn’t understand what it takes to accomplish tasks anymore due to maligned incentives from middle management. Middle management wants to progress up the corporate ladder, which it does by growing its team size. E.g. by growing a team of 10 into a team of 100 with new layers of management below. This happens even if the scope of work remains largely unchanged. As a result, no one knows how many people it takes to accomplish tasks. There are so many people that ownership becomes and issue. People can simply pass the buck. And any sense of autonomy fades as more people are brought on to do a dwindling pool of actual work. The end result is large, inefficiently run bureaucracies.
>It was really frustrating. So the wording on what financial contributions should be, like in this article, has lots of wiggle room. It seems Dartmouth is covering tuition for families making $65k or less. But a single year’s tuition is $60k, so good luck to families making $70k.
That's the point.
This is a non-change. They've always accepted a few poor people and dolled out scholarships under the unspoken guise of "economic diversity". If you don't fall into that category you either need to be rich or exceed the typical admissions requirements by enough to warrant an exception. The university is just patting itself on the back for something it's always been doing.
That's the point.
This is a non-change. They've always accepted a few poor people and dolled out scholarships under the unspoken guise of "economic diversity". If you don't fall into that category you either need to be rich or exceed the typical admissions requirements by enough to warrant an exception. The university is just patting itself on the back for something it's always been doing.
> I think these legacy universities don’t want to lower tuition because they still admit lots of rich people who just pay. But the middle class is really squeezed out. Of course the lower class is squeezed as well since it’s hard to get accepted if parents can’t afford tutors, coaches, etc.
IMHO, income from college endowments that are larger than one billion dollars should be taxed at 110%.
IMHO, income from college endowments that are larger than one billion dollars should be taxed at 110%.
There's a cynical take that the social function of the absolute elite universities is to allow young upper-class people (with family wealth and access to wealthy networks) to network with the smartest and most driven members of the middle- and lower classes (who will get things done).
Presumably, the willingness of the family to make sacrifices for their child is a positive indicator for how driven the child will be.
Presumably, the willingness of the family to make sacrifices for their child is a positive indicator for how driven the child will be.
Cynical, or merely descriptive? https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/why-the-fuck-do-you-tru...
Oh man that was a good read. Especially since you can MadLib the institution name and so many other parts of it.
Good catch.
They use weasel words
"Dartmouth is now removing the loan requirement for undergraduates from families with annual income of more than $125,000 who receive need-based financial aid."
Most students coming from families earning 125k+ won't actually qualify for any aid.
The entire financial aid system is broken. Have a domestic violence situation at home, so your parents don't want to fill your FASA out, no aid for you !
Still live with your supportive parents at 24, you automatically get the max amount.
If I ran the world, I would give everyone aid for up to 6 years, and get rid of affirmative action completely.
I'd argue the vast vast majority of students are better served going to a community college first. Figure out if college is even something you want to do , and if it is, get yourself a part-time job or better yet a full-time one so you understand how to manage money.
They use weasel words
"Dartmouth is now removing the loan requirement for undergraduates from families with annual income of more than $125,000 who receive need-based financial aid."
Most students coming from families earning 125k+ won't actually qualify for any aid.
The entire financial aid system is broken. Have a domestic violence situation at home, so your parents don't want to fill your FASA out, no aid for you !
Still live with your supportive parents at 24, you automatically get the max amount.
If I ran the world, I would give everyone aid for up to 6 years, and get rid of affirmative action completely.
I'd argue the vast vast majority of students are better served going to a community college first. Figure out if college is even something you want to do , and if it is, get yourself a part-time job or better yet a full-time one so you understand how to manage money.
This is not accurate, I just had a kid graduate from Dartmouth a couple of years ago and my wife and I make right around $150k combined with her working part time. We paid around $35,000/year, so Dartmouth covered about half of tuition costs. We did also take advantage of the federal student loans, it seems reasonable for the kids to have a little skin in the game as well.
35k a year is a ton of money. No way the typical 6 figure earning couple has that.
I make a good amount too, and I don't have a spare 3k per month.
Let's just say you have a rough time after 2 years.
At community college , you're out maybe 2 or 3k total. Using your own numbers, that would be 70k spent without a degree.
I make a good amount too, and I don't have a spare 3k per month.
Let's just say you have a rough time after 2 years.
At community college , you're out maybe 2 or 3k total. Using your own numbers, that would be 70k spent without a degree.
You mention affirmative action but not legacy admissions?
I went to a community college first. I also worked in my dad's business, sometimes behind the cash register. I've had my own consulting business, I think I know a little bit about 'handling money', and I don't consider myself particularly better served by that community college bit.
Also went to CC but I highly disagree, it was great saving two years of tuition costs
> Most students coming from families earning 125k+ won't actually qualify for any aid.
Good?
Good?
75k a year of college is affordable for a household income of 150k? Really?
What college costs $75k/year? My kids go to the flagship state school in Illinois (Champaign), their tuition is less than 1/4 of that, and we pay full freight.
Dartmouth. The one this article is about.
And many more.
And many more.
So, respectfully, and I'm sorry for the emotive language, but don't fucking go to Dartmouth. The existence of the Bugatti Veyron does not means cars in general are a 7 figure purchase.
Our parents generation were able to go to colleges like Dartmouth at an affordable rate. Now we are not. There's clearly a problem that needs solving.
No, it isn't. Dartmouth is a luxury good. It's undeserving of any public policy consideration. If my parents found it easier to buy a yacht than I do, I wouldn't consider public policy interventions to "correct" the situation; I'd write my parents yacht off as a blip, and move forward.
If you’re family is making $150k/year then your kids don’t need the leg up from going to an Ivy League school.
Really? So the only people who should be able to go to Ivy League schools are those poor enough to get aid and those rich enough to pay for the entire fee? We shouldn't be evaluating our youth on their merit? What kind of solution is that?
Great way to make sure that the children of the professional class of people who make that sort of money (lawyers, engineers, nurses) not work as hard as possible and use their upbringing to contribute to the future of the country. Putrid take.
Great way to make sure that the children of the professional class of people who make that sort of money (lawyers, engineers, nurses) not work as hard as possible and use their upbringing to contribute to the future of the country. Putrid take.
> Really? So the only people who should be able to go to Ivy League schools are those poor enough to get aid and those rich enough to pay for the entire fee?
Giving poor kids a leg up over upper middle class kids is a win regardless of what you do with rich kids. That’s a separate issue.
> Great way to make sure that the children of the professional class of people who make that sort of money (lawyers, engineers, nurses) not work as hard as possible and use their upbringing to contribute to the future of the country.
The upper middle class has been instrumental in the last few decades in driving inequality. Behind every factory that’s shut down in Milwaukee and outsourced to China there’s lawyers and consultants and even logistical engineers making that happen. See: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jul/15/how-us-mi...
Giving poor kids a leg up over upper middle class kids is a win regardless of what you do with rich kids. That’s a separate issue.
> Great way to make sure that the children of the professional class of people who make that sort of money (lawyers, engineers, nurses) not work as hard as possible and use their upbringing to contribute to the future of the country.
The upper middle class has been instrumental in the last few decades in driving inequality. Behind every factory that’s shut down in Milwaukee and outsourced to China there’s lawyers and consultants and even logistical engineers making that happen. See: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jul/15/how-us-mi...
Why would you do that through financial aid? If a kid's worked hard enough to get into school they should be allowed to go regardless of their financial status, 75k a year is not affordable at all to a household making 150k a year. After taxes that's nearly all of that home's take home pay. You can give poor kids a leg up with consideration to their backgrounds during admissions time - make it harder for more privileged kids to get into school in the first place, I'm all for it. I don't see how that's a separate issue at all.
Your second point doesn't make any sense - we should be punishing children because of the amorphous negative externalities of every professional in the United States economy? They're to blame as opposed to the leadership of modern corporations that vote themselves multi million dollar bonuses each year while offshoring business and keeping worker pay down?
Your second point doesn't make any sense - we should be punishing children because of the amorphous negative externalities of every professional in the United States economy? They're to blame as opposed to the leadership of modern corporations that vote themselves multi million dollar bonuses each year while offshoring business and keeping worker pay down?
We’re not talking about “punishing” individual kids. We are talking about the policies adopted by non-profit colleges with respect to use of their endowments. I don’t see any problem with basing that decision on the desire to reduce income inequality—inequality that’s being driven in large part by armies of upper middle class people who have been pulling away from the middle class over 30 years just as even richer people have. What’s wrong with universities structuring their financial aid policies with that in mind?
> 75k a year is not affordable at all to a household making 150k a year. After taxes that's nearly all of that home's take home pay.
Hopefully, American making $150k/year heard about savings, and can also predict the expense of college, and can plan for it in advance.
Hopefully, American making $150k/year heard about savings, and can also predict the expense of college, and can plan for it in advance.
This is such horseshit.
First, the $150k is at the time of child’s application, not over their entire life.
Second, college tuition has been increasing at highly variable rates so I doubt anyone would have guessed that tuition would increase 8%/year for 18 years.
Third, four years of Dartmouth tuition is $300k. Let’s graciously say the average income over the kid’s 18 years is $100k. That means that that parents would need to save $16k/year or 16%. There’s no tax deferred program that allows $16k/year so factor in tax dollars.
Fourth, families frequently have multiple children. So if they have two, you think parents should save 30% of their income for college? Or if 3, 45%?
It’s funny how people imagine $150k is some massive amount of money. And it’s a decent living, but it’s not something that paying an extra $6k per month is possible.
First, the $150k is at the time of child’s application, not over their entire life.
Second, college tuition has been increasing at highly variable rates so I doubt anyone would have guessed that tuition would increase 8%/year for 18 years.
Third, four years of Dartmouth tuition is $300k. Let’s graciously say the average income over the kid’s 18 years is $100k. That means that that parents would need to save $16k/year or 16%. There’s no tax deferred program that allows $16k/year so factor in tax dollars.
Fourth, families frequently have multiple children. So if they have two, you think parents should save 30% of their income for college? Or if 3, 45%?
It’s funny how people imagine $150k is some massive amount of money. And it’s a decent living, but it’s not something that paying an extra $6k per month is possible.
I've stopped bothering to argue this commenter, it's clear they think that an engineer making 150k a year supporting a family is the same as Jeff Bezos.
So we should be punishing children of consultants to make them atone for the hereditary sins of writing reports/collecting information so some executive somewhere can actually make the call?
Why? Why do parents even have an expected contribution for college? I mean, if they want to help their kids out, then go for it, but why is the expectation that when one adult purchases a certain service, we analyze the finances of related adults to determine how much the service should cost. No other thing operates like that.
I think most parents help their kids. For me, my parents had tax problems so I was unable to complete a FAFSA so I couldn’t get any aid that depended on the FAFSA.
Although I don’t know a fix because if you had special situations for people like me, people would abuse it. I had a friend with divorced parents. The dad was pretty wealthy making like $500/year and paying the mom $100k/year in child support so the mom didn’t work and had like $3k tax returns from some part time job. She swore an affidavit that she received zero income from the dad and that the son was estranged from the dad. So the friend got a 100% needs based scholarship. It’s not like schools have an investigative arm to test claims.
Although I don’t know a fix because if you had special situations for people like me, people would abuse it. I had a friend with divorced parents. The dad was pretty wealthy making like $500/year and paying the mom $100k/year in child support so the mom didn’t work and had like $3k tax returns from some part time job. She swore an affidavit that she received zero income from the dad and that the son was estranged from the dad. So the friend got a 100% needs based scholarship. It’s not like schools have an investigative arm to test claims.
[deleted]
I think this is a great idea, but for different reasons than you’d think.
If you read around, there is an epidemic of college freshman whose parents have the ambition, and will do whatever to force their kid into the college and even the major they choose…(sample: https://www.amazon.com/How-Raise-Adult-Overparenting-Prepare..., these are students entering Stanford whose can’t make their own decisions).
Who ended up stuck with the loans for these degrees that the kids may not want or have the independence to take advantage of? Not the parents… the students are the ones suffering for their parents’ ambition.
Obviously not the whole picture, and maybe it’s not completely right yet, but I think this particular direction will help some of those students.
If you read around, there is an epidemic of college freshman whose parents have the ambition, and will do whatever to force their kid into the college and even the major they choose…(sample: https://www.amazon.com/How-Raise-Adult-Overparenting-Prepare..., these are students entering Stanford whose can’t make their own decisions).
Who ended up stuck with the loans for these degrees that the kids may not want or have the independence to take advantage of? Not the parents… the students are the ones suffering for their parents’ ambition.
Obviously not the whole picture, and maybe it’s not completely right yet, but I think this particular direction will help some of those students.
Oh gee oh wow! They’re eliminating disbursement of loans directly to the student. Now the parents can take the loan out in their own names to pay for their child’s education. They fixed the system, we can all go home now.
Wait, wasn’t that essentially what promissory notes were for prior to the department of education originating loans to the student directly?
Hundreds of millions of donor dollars to the endowment are not going to the people. They probably just eliminated some jobs from their financial aid department and are now announcing that they don’t even have the capacity to serve loans to students.
Dartmouth can eat my fafsa.
Wait, wasn’t that essentially what promissory notes were for prior to the department of education originating loans to the student directly?
Hundreds of millions of donor dollars to the endowment are not going to the people. They probably just eliminated some jobs from their financial aid department and are now announcing that they don’t even have the capacity to serve loans to students.
Dartmouth can eat my fafsa.
this practice applies to all schools saying 'eliminating debts for students', Dartmouth just joined the game late.
the bottom line is always squeezing the middle classes.
the bottom line is always squeezing the middle classes.
One whiff of student loan forgiveness being mentioned and they rush to protect their capital. This is financial protection for Dartmouth dressed up as some sort of benefit to students.
How would this be a problem? Not following…. They don’t offer the student loans themselves afaik, the loans come from somewhere else, so they normally get the money but not the risk.
And I would think that if there _is_ loan forgiveness… that is essentially a back door to a increased government grant, they can’t just tell private companies to eat the losses, the government (i.e. taxpayers :) would have to cover them…
And I would think that if there _is_ loan forgiveness… that is essentially a back door to a increased government grant, they can’t just tell private companies to eat the losses, the government (i.e. taxpayers :) would have to cover them…
> they can’t just tell private companies to eat the losses
Sure they can. The poor widdle loan sharks might not like that, but tough shit.
Sure they can. The poor widdle loan sharks might not like that, but tough shit.
> Sure they can
Sure they can. And just as sure they'd be sued. Fifth Amendment, or something.
Sure they can. And just as sure they'd be sued. Fifth Amendment, or something.
Ideally, tuition should be provided by the government.
If not, then a subsidy that provides universities only charge 5% of income to $50k, 10% of annual net income per year if making up to $150k, then 20% of any net income exceeding $150k. Add a break to deduct from taxable income the tuition donated to a blind trust scholarship up to a certain amount. That scholarship is then used to offset high achievers for whom college tuition might still be a burden. That gives universities a fair share of money while still allowing everyone to go to college.
If it keeps going the way it's going, the only people who will be able to go to anything other than a community college are those whose parents are making in excess of $200k per year. Mind you community college is often a great education, but you don't get the extra opportunity benefits you would at a university: increased networking, professors who can demand a higher salary (come of these will work at community colleges because they want to), wider range of curriculum, more research opportunities, easier to get published.
If not, then a subsidy that provides universities only charge 5% of income to $50k, 10% of annual net income per year if making up to $150k, then 20% of any net income exceeding $150k. Add a break to deduct from taxable income the tuition donated to a blind trust scholarship up to a certain amount. That scholarship is then used to offset high achievers for whom college tuition might still be a burden. That gives universities a fair share of money while still allowing everyone to go to college.
If it keeps going the way it's going, the only people who will be able to go to anything other than a community college are those whose parents are making in excess of $200k per year. Mind you community college is often a great education, but you don't get the extra opportunity benefits you would at a university: increased networking, professors who can demand a higher salary (come of these will work at community colleges because they want to), wider range of curriculum, more research opportunities, easier to get published.
I wouldn't be entirely opposed to the idea of government funded tuition if the institutions weren't so horribly bloated. Even back in the early 2000's my university built a college football stadium, because they didn't like that the team had to use the city's stadium. Not only did they take donations and funding, but also added $600 a semester to every students' "fees"
Yup, they increased tuition without increasing tuition by making every student pay an additional fee which, in my case, added roughly 10% (not to mention the other fees) to help pay for a stadium we didn't need. They literally funded the stadium in part by students taking out non-dischargable loans.
Since then, administrative and real estate bloat has only gotten worse. The whole system needs a drastic re-think if it is to become a public good.
Yup, they increased tuition without increasing tuition by making every student pay an additional fee which, in my case, added roughly 10% (not to mention the other fees) to help pay for a stadium we didn't need. They literally funded the stadium in part by students taking out non-dischargable loans.
Since then, administrative and real estate bloat has only gotten worse. The whole system needs a drastic re-think if it is to become a public good.
You are right, just throwing money at the problem is not going to fix it. It's not a popular opinion, but I think they should just ban all college sports. Students are there to learn, not to play a a sport - and much of the abuses in the system are the result of college sports. Much of the rest of the abuses are from universities acting as for-profit organizations with their research and patents.
Maybe something where students cannot graduate until they achieve a successful score on a test in their profession. Annual tuition is set by, and split among, the professors of the classes they take. A 10% overhead on the tuition would go to the school. The professors who best enabled passing the test would be able to demand the most money. I look at what I wrote and realize this is sounding like the model of Coursera, Udacity, etc.
Maybe something where students cannot graduate until they achieve a successful score on a test in their profession. Annual tuition is set by, and split among, the professors of the classes they take. A 10% overhead on the tuition would go to the school. The professors who best enabled passing the test would be able to demand the most money. I look at what I wrote and realize this is sounding like the model of Coursera, Udacity, etc.
I believe there is a lot of value in promoting athleticism in college. A healthy mind is enhanced by a healthy lifestyle.
What I don't care one bit for is the professionalization and commercialisation of collegiate athletics. It becomes a detraction, a purpose unto itself which should be made separate from the school.
What I don't care one bit for is the professionalization and commercialisation of collegiate athletics. It becomes a detraction, a purpose unto itself which should be made separate from the school.
> Students are there to learn, not to play a a sport
If someone wants to go to a college to learn to play a sport then there should be a college for that sport. I think perhaps that is what's perceived to be missing.
Lots of colleges have mixed curriculums. So if you go to college to major in some sport and minor in mathematics then... shouldn't the college have all of the tools to allow you to learn your major? And if you go to college to major in mathematics and minor in some sport then... shouldn't the college have all of the tools to allow you to learn your minor?
Perhaps the real problem is a college that has their own tools -- their own sports complex, their own stadium, their own laboratory, their own microscopes. A college shouldn't be able to opt-out of using government-owned stadiums or government-owned laboratories. Except... how will the schedule of the college work with the public? It seems like there could be a lot of conflicting schedules and events; public stadiums need to be available to the public and not monopolized by the college. Public laboratories need to be available to the public and... wait do we even have public laboratories?
There's lots of problems with our education system. This is just a symptom :)
If someone wants to go to a college to learn to play a sport then there should be a college for that sport. I think perhaps that is what's perceived to be missing.
Lots of colleges have mixed curriculums. So if you go to college to major in some sport and minor in mathematics then... shouldn't the college have all of the tools to allow you to learn your major? And if you go to college to major in mathematics and minor in some sport then... shouldn't the college have all of the tools to allow you to learn your minor?
Perhaps the real problem is a college that has their own tools -- their own sports complex, their own stadium, their own laboratory, their own microscopes. A college shouldn't be able to opt-out of using government-owned stadiums or government-owned laboratories. Except... how will the schedule of the college work with the public? It seems like there could be a lot of conflicting schedules and events; public stadiums need to be available to the public and not monopolized by the college. Public laboratories need to be available to the public and... wait do we even have public laboratories?
There's lots of problems with our education system. This is just a symptom :)
Did the students vote for that fee? Most student facility fees are enacted by student vote, not just imposed by administrators.
> Ideally, tuition should be provided by the government.
Why? Such a policy is either regressive, or inefficient. If you do like the Germans do and limit college enrollment to what the economy really needs (1/4 of the population, maybe less than that), then you have middle class people subsidizing upper middle class and rich people. If you open up college to everyone like America is trying to do, then you generate huge amounts of waste. In America, half of bartenders have a college degree, and that's without free tuition!
Why? Such a policy is either regressive, or inefficient. If you do like the Germans do and limit college enrollment to what the economy really needs (1/4 of the population, maybe less than that), then you have middle class people subsidizing upper middle class and rich people. If you open up college to everyone like America is trying to do, then you generate huge amounts of waste. In America, half of bartenders have a college degree, and that's without free tuition!
germany doesn't limit college enrollment based on economic needs. by law, every student who qualifies, has a right to enroll.
limits are based on the capacities of each university. if the demand grows then capacities need to be expanded.
the big difference is that universities do not decide who qualifies. anyone with a highschool diploma qualifies automatically. but not every student enters high school. many students instead learn a trade after middle school.
limits are based on the capacities of each university. if the demand grows then capacities need to be expanded.
the big difference is that universities do not decide who qualifies. anyone with a highschool diploma qualifies automatically. but not every student enters high school. many students instead learn a trade after middle school.
It is provided by government. Most people I know had both private and federal loans. I only have federal loans left to pay. You can also deduct the interest payed from taxes.
The root of the problem is that a career is treated like a product. It's a product that you won't know whether it's good or bad until you graduate four years later or more. The job market changes faster than this, and a lot students find themselves changing careers later to adjust to market demand, and in some cases they just can't get a job in the field at all.
One potential solution here, is have companies pay for schools. The way it would work is that companies hire new grads and they pay some form of education insurance. If you can't get a job within a certain time period, the school should take the loss, until you get the job later. This would force schools to rethink what they're offering.
The root of the problem is that a career is treated like a product. It's a product that you won't know whether it's good or bad until you graduate four years later or more. The job market changes faster than this, and a lot students find themselves changing careers later to adjust to market demand, and in some cases they just can't get a job in the field at all.
One potential solution here, is have companies pay for schools. The way it would work is that companies hire new grads and they pay some form of education insurance. If you can't get a job within a certain time period, the school should take the loss, until you get the job later. This would force schools to rethink what they're offering.
> Ideally, tuition should be provided by the government.
Ideally, tuition shouldn't exist in the first place. Certainly not for ostensibly "public" schools.
Ideally, tuition shouldn't exist in the first place. Certainly not for ostensibly "public" schools.
I see a lot of negativity and questioning the motives of Dartmouth here. The college endowment is large enough that they could fund tuition for all students. The place is not run like a for-profit business and these decisions are made by looking at the finances what their goals are for funding financial aid. At some point it doesn’t make sense to give free tuition to a family and the money could be better spent elsewhere to further their goals.
Since September they received $120M, divide by 70,000 and that’s full tuition for 1714 students, more than the freshman class. In the “campaign” it’s over $500M covering everyone for a year.
In 2021 the endowment was $8.5B. A 4% yearly return on the endowment could fund every single undergraduate and then some in perpetuity. As mentioned above, they’re raking in massive donations on top of that so the endowment is growing faster than it can be spent.
Since September they received $120M, divide by 70,000 and that’s full tuition for 1714 students, more than the freshman class. In the “campaign” it’s over $500M covering everyone for a year.
In 2021 the endowment was $8.5B. A 4% yearly return on the endowment could fund every single undergraduate and then some in perpetuity. As mentioned above, they’re raking in massive donations on top of that so the endowment is growing faster than it can be spent.
As a NYC resident, it always makes me sad to see hard caps on income limits that don't take into account any type of COL or locality. As a family, we bring in around 300k/year but after rent in a modest 2BD Manhattan apartment, child care, essentials and everything else a family needs, we have very little "extra" spending money. I'm not trying to make an argument that we're the equivalent of a family making 60k/year but it seems like an argument could be made that we shouldn't punish people who live in high COL areas with high salaries but low disposable incomes.
My child applied to a school that had a similar policy that students would only graduate with $15k in student loans.
Tuition was $40k back when kid applied. We filled out financial aid package with my income of like $150k and no assets outside of retirement savings.
We got a letter with “congrats total amount each year is $47k including room and board, work study is $1500, grant is $1500, expected parental contribution is $44k/year. You don’t need student loans.”
It was really frustrating. So the wording on what financial contributions should be, like in this article, has lots of wiggle room. It seems Dartmouth is covering tuition for families making $65k or less. But a single year’s tuition is $60k, so good luck to families making $70k.
I think these legacy universities don’t want to lower tuition because they still admit lots of rich people who just pay. But the middle class is really squeezed out. Of course the lower class is squeezed as well since it’s hard to get accepted if parents can’t afford tutors, coaches, etc.