Is there a reason we shouldn't treat major educational institutions as non-profits, assuming we accept the concept of non-profits in the first place? (Note that the rules for non-profits already require spending a certain amount of the endowment every year.)
If one views the subsidy associated with the non-profit status as a form of education spending, it's fair to ask whether that is the best use of that money.
That's exactly backward though. The Ivy League schools all have need-blind admissions and meet 100% of demonstrated financial need (for U.S. students)
Successful parents breed (read: raise) successful children. Surely not in every case, but in aggregate. As a successful graduate of a small tech school in Cambridge, I was aided by my parents' educational bent, bias, and investments of time and money. They were aided by their parents, just as my wife and I will aid our children.
P ( student_is_poor | student_attends_ivy )
P ( applicant_is_admitted_to_ivy | applicant_is_poor )
I take the view that the latter is the better measure, but I can see people arguing that the former has some relevance.
I further agree that there is a positive correlation between income and acceptance. I further agree that there is a positive correlation between income and application. What I don't see is any productive way to 100% eradicate those correlations.
I'm only familiar with the admissions policies as practiced by MIT in the late 80s and early 90s. There was explicit bias for diversity (which is good; no one wants an utterly homogenous population), but I also think it's perfectly reasonable to deny admission to a very selective university to a student who is utterly undistinguished in all aspects of their high-school career. Admissions to selective schools ought not become a totally random lottery.
I think that removing financial gates for those students who are accepted (need blind admissions) is mandatory and effective. Going beyond that is fraught with peril I think.
Residential life is part of the package of top-tier universities - you live in the dorms first year by default, and are usually required to. When students migrate to nearby apartments depends, and is sometimes never.
Financial aid offices "meet demonstrated need" and don't typically differentiate between tuition, fees, and room and board.
If a student with a full ride moves off, financial aid cuts them a check for living expenses. Sometimes this amount is calculated based on the expectation that the student will work a campus job (with govt-subsidized wages - Work Study) and sometimes not.
Because universities are increasingly operating like businesses, using technology transfer offices to bring in revenue and using graduate students to cut labor costs.