That's the primary reason to go to private school. That's what justifies the 2-4x price gap with public universities. All the niceties (not having to enter into a bi-yearly battle royal for seats in limited space classes, not having to put up with overly impacted class sizes, other little luxuries) are just there to maintain the appearance of prestige. The actual value comes from the admissions department.
I went to a private school and I saw a lot of friend groups and social structures that find ways to limit those networks to “rich and competent” instead of “just competent”.
Eg Fraternal organizations (bonus: also gender limited) like fraternities, finals clubs, or supper clubs with massive fees and tight cultures are one big common example. I was (embarrassingly) in such a club and there was definitely a riff between incomes (“wanna fly to New Orleans for Mardi Gras this week, we’ll only miss a few days of class?”)
Obviously spring break trips or not having to work a campus job. Eg Yacht week.
Also: expensive clubs with extra dues, equipment
A big thing that I didn’t expect, but is something that IMO schools don’t do a good job to address is that many lower-income students just don’t understand that sort of academic world because no one taught them. Eg I met a freshman student who thought professors wanted him to fail and that there was an adversarial relationship. Furthermore, he thought office hours are when the professors shouldn’t be disturbed. Once someone just explained that professors want you to succeed and hold office hours to help you succeed, he became more successful, less stressed, and spent less time studying alone. My parents taught me all this, and my high school held office hours… but many students never learn how this world works!
I think that is a myth, unless the student is paying more than say $100k per year. Elsewhere I read that average fees were about $50k, but I presume there is quite some variation.
Total operating expenses = $5.4 billion[1]
Operating Revenue: Endowment income 36%, Education/Tuition 21%, Research 17%, Gifts 9%, Other 17%[1]
The 21% Education/Tuition income is split: Degree Seeking Education 13%, and Continuing and Executive Education: 7%[3]
Student income 1.2 billion[3]
There are 30,391 students including 8,527 undergraduate and 21,864 graduate students at Harvard University for academic year 2020-2021. By attending status, there are 19,030 full-time and 11,361 part-time students[2]
Assuming teaching the students costs 2.5 billion (rest is research costs) and 25000 full-time-equivalent students, then if each rich student pays enough to fully subsidise a second poor student, the rich student would need to pay $200k, and you trend towards a larger percentage of the students being rich.Argued from a different perspective (with a similar outcome): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33838201
[1] https://finance.harvard.edu/financial-overview
[2] https://www.univstats.com/colleges/harvard-university/studen...
[3] https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy22_harvard_fin...
The closest I can paraphrase your point-of-view would be “rich students are great”, or potentially that poor students gain by associating with rich students?
1) The view that the value given by over charging the rich students should be based on the number of students' tuition they eliminate is not fairly representing the situation, and understates the impact of having, say, a quarter of the student body paying significantly more than the "true" price. If the school spends say 20k/student, they charge some students 60k and others 10k, then each rich student has subsidized 4 poorer students. If a parent donates a large sum to get their kid into the school, that number is likely much greater.
2) Expensive schools using their high tuition offset by discretionarily providing merit (or need chosen by merit) based aide as a filter to distill the student body to only the high-performing, rich, or both is the main value proposition of expensive schools. Every pairing both within and between those two groups are valuable to the students, relative to say an acquaintance with an economically disadvantaged mediocre student. It subtly turns the universal experience of making new friends at university into a massive opportunity for networking, which many students don't even realize while they're engaging in it. It's not egalitarian, but it is extremely valuable to its beneficiaries.
My point is that you are misrepresenting the scale of the figures. I suspect the figures are more like $50k fees, and $100k costs? Given those figures as assumptions, rich kids need to pay way way more, and the fees paid by poorer students matters less. Otherwise you just end up with a school with mostly rich kids. I go into my assumptions for the figures in the other post I linked to.
> Expensive schools using their high tuition
Undergrad tuition fees only makes up something like 13% of Harvard income, and some of that is paid for by “poorer” students. I think your argument hinges upon tuition income being the most significant income to the school. Remove 13% of costs (crazy admin staff) and Harvard doesn’t need any tuition income from rich kids any more for undergraduates.
Google result shows “Harvard's 2019 class [snip] a massive 82 percent of those scholars are economically advantaged” i.e. rich kids are obviously not subsidising poor kids.
I am merely trying to point out that you are making deep assumptions, annd your anssumptions appear to be false, although admittedly I have only done some superficial googling.
I presume Harvard is a finishing school, for networking and status signalling. Especially given its 98% pass rate!
> massive opportunity for networking
I would hope that poorer students manage to network into the rich kid networks (I totally agree we should be realistic about how the world works, regardless of how “unfair” it may be). Whether poor students can effectively network is another question. I have certainly seen articles from poor kids explaining how difficult it is to break into wealthy cliques e.g. can’t pony up cash to join sporting events or outings, and don’t understand the social queues.
I admit I don’t really know much about the topic, since I went to a middle class school in a country on the edge of the world, and I have never spent time with wealthy scions. I am relatively wealthy compared with my friends (excluding the friends that I made my wealth with). Note: I’m using undergraduate and graduate in the UK meaning, not the US meaning, which I don’t grok.
Here is a (left-bias?) article that argues that poor kids are not actually being helped: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/28/14359140/c...
I presume it is difficult to find right-bias articles looking at equality of opportunity for expensive universities?