←back to thread

Undergraduates with family income below $200k will be tuition-free at MIT

(news.mit.edu)
737 points gnabgib | 4 comments | 20 Nov 24 16:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
TheJoeMan ◴[20 Nov 24 19:26 UTC] No.42197249[source]▶
This is a great step in the right direction. I can't speak directly for MIT, but there are issues with how these programs don't apply to parents with small family businesses. My parents had a small business, with my father taking home a salary of $XX,XXX. Duke University used the business assets to determine the EFC (expected family contribution) of literally 90% of the salary. Essentially saying to sell off the family business for the college fund, which was a non-starter.

Small businesses are allegedly the backbone of America, and I feel these tuition support programs overlook this segment of the middle-class.

replies(21): >>42197538 #>>42197658 #>>42198000 #>>42198518 #>>42198630 #>>42198802 #>>42199002 #>>42199120 #>>42199126 #>>42199269 #>>42199949 #>>42200245 #>>42200451 #>>42200630 #>>42200685 #>>42200902 #>>42201562 #>>42202117 #>>42202554 #>>42203243 #>>42205511 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[20 Nov 24 20:00 UTC] No.42197538[source]▶
It’s incredibly difficult to structure these rules in a way that doesn’t discriminate against small businesses while not opening a giant loophole for the rich.
replies(3): >>42198599 #>>42198632 #>>42198799 #
changoplatanero ◴[20 Nov 24 22:06 UTC] No.42198599[source]▶
Why is the price you have to pay for something dependent on how much money your parents make? Feels so unfair
replies(2): >>42198688 #>>42198715 #
s1artibartfast ◴[20 Nov 24 22:18 UTC] No.42198715[source]▶
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 discount to prospective students.

replies(2): >>42198916 #>>42199140 #
ndriscoll ◴[20 Nov 24 23:15 UTC] No.42199140[source]▶
You can't make that case at all. The price these name-brand schools ask is pretty much "how much do you(r parents) have?", and your kids could instead go to state school (if they can get into MIT, they probably qualify for a full ride scholarship or at least close) and have that tuition go to an ~80% down payment on their first house.
replies(1): >>42199259 #
s1artibartfast ◴[20 Nov 24 23:30 UTC] No.42199259[source]▶
I agree with that. I dont see how that is MIT's problem.
replies(1): >>42199512 #
ndriscoll ◴[21 Nov 24 00:01 UTC] No.42199512[source]▶
It's not their problem, but they're setting the absurd price, so it's not the parents screwing over the kids somehow. The price being so outrageously high does also call into question whether their charitable endowments could reasonably be characterized as part of a tax avoidance scam.
replies(1): >>42201072 #
s1artibartfast ◴[21 Nov 24 04:20 UTC] No.42201072[source]▶
>The price being so outrageously high does also call into question whether their charitable endowments could reasonably be characterized as part of a tax avoidance scam.

I dont see how that follows at all. They spend more on students than they receive in tuition funds. Who would they be scamming? What if they offered a million dollar education? I still dont see how that would impact their non-profit status.

replies(1): >>42205495 #
1. ndriscoll ◴[21 Nov 24 15:47 UTC] No.42205495[source]▶
If they offered a million dollar education, I'd say the IRS should heavily scrutinize their budget, and if they did manage to stay within the letter of the law, it's likely that the law should be fixed because holistically, it's unlikely that they're truly spending over 20x what comparable universities do on educating students.
replies(1): >>42205695 #
2. s1artibartfast ◴[21 Nov 24 16:07 UTC] No.42205695[source]▶
What laws are you worried about specifically? You could run a non-profit giving million dollar spa days.
replies(1): >>42206969 #
3. ndriscoll ◴[21 Nov 24 18:10 UTC] No.42206969[source]▶
You can't run a 501(c)(3) giving million dollar spa days though. If you're actually running e.g. a 501(c)(7) social club, then your investment income is taxable, and there are limits on unrelated business activities. If you're an educational nonprofit and your purported spending on education is wildly out of line with what it costs elsewhere, that should raise eyebrows as to whether that money is being spent on education.
replies(1): >>42207409 #
4. s1artibartfast ◴[21 Nov 24 18:56 UTC] No.42207409{3}[source]▶
I dont think it is as clear as that. My understanding is much of the distinction between those two comes down to who the beneficiary is and if it is a self serving private membership, or serving the public.

Either way, I dont see the educational requirements for costs in line with other institutions, especially when the institutions can easily showing they are spending more on the students than they are charging. Discounting a $100k educational experience to 85k is still a benefit to the public. Someone offering a different educational experience for $20k doesn't negate that.

If we want more cheaper universities and education as a society, we should think about creating them, not trying to force expensive universities to be cheaper.

The challenge is that people don't actually want cheap accessible education, they want luxury too.