(04-26-2016 09:05 PM)75src Wrote:  Rice needs to be cutting tuition instead of raising it. It is too much considering what it was in the past and William Marsh Rice's desire to have Rice tuition free.

Anyone that can say college tuition is rational doesn't have a clue. Universities are sitting on billions of dollars while still charging kids $60k a year to attend school. College should not be a profit making business especially at the expense of students. Perhaps the rich pensions should be funded by the endowments and not off the backs of students.

(04-26-2016 09:48 PM)Howlomaha Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:05 PM)75src Wrote:  Rice needs to be cutting tuition instead of raising it. It is too much considering what it was in the past and William Marsh Rice's desire to have Rice tuition free.

Anyone that can say college tuition is rational doesn't have a clue. Universities are sitting on billions of dollars while still charging kids $60k a year to attend school. College should not be a profit making business especially at the expense of students. Perhaps the rich pensions should be funded by the endowments and not off the backs of students.

I think what this really means is that Rice has expanded beyond its endowment's ability to support expenses. If the student body were half its size, would there even be tuition? But the difficulty there is that you need a real presence to be a leader in faculty research and reputation, and there size matters.

(04-26-2016 10:23 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:48 PM)Howlomaha Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:05 PM)75src Wrote:  Rice needs to be cutting tuition instead of raising it. It is too much considering what it was in the past and William Marsh Rice's desire to have Rice tuition free.

Anyone that can say college tuition is rational doesn't have a clue. Universities are sitting on billions of dollars while still charging kids $60k a year to attend school. College should not be a profit making business especially at the expense of students. Perhaps the rich pensions should be funded by the endowments and not off the backs of students.

I think what this really means is that Rice has expanded beyond its endowment's ability to support expenses. If the student body were half its size, would there even be tuition? But the difficulty there is that you need a real presence to be a leader in faculty research and reputation, and there size matters.

Previously they had a policy of pricing Rice as a bargain compared to comparable schools, and each class had its tuition set upon matriculation, I believed indexed to inflation, providing predictability for the students. They now seem to have taken the single malt scotch approach, that if it is more expensive , it must be better. So the list price is higher, though financial aid would supposedly bring it back in line. This approach is not good for partial schoolies, much as uninsured patients get screwed in the medical system.

(04-26-2016 11:46 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 10:23 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:48 PM)Howlomaha Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:05 PM)75src Wrote:  Rice needs to be cutting tuition instead of raising it. It is too much considering what it was in the past and William Marsh Rice's desire to have Rice tuition free.

Anyone that can say college tuition is rational doesn't have a clue. Universities are sitting on billions of dollars while still charging kids $60k a year to attend school. College should not be a profit making business especially at the expense of students. Perhaps the rich pensions should be funded by the endowments and not off the backs of students.

I think what this really means is that Rice has expanded beyond its endowment's ability to support expenses. If the student body were half its size, would there even be tuition? But the difficulty there is that you need a real presence to be a leader in faculty research and reputation, and there size matters.

Previously they had a policy of pricing Rice as a bargain compared to comparable schools, and each class had its tuition set upon matriculation, I believed indexed to inflation, providing predictability for the students. They now seem to have taken the single malt scotch approach, that if it is more expensive , it must be better. So the list price is higher, though financial aid would supposedly bring it back in line. This approach is not good for partial schoolies, much as uninsured patients get screwed in the medical system.

Seventy years ago, everyone who attended Rice paid $0, even those who could readily have paid much more.

Thirty years ago, everyone who attended Rice paid less than the going rate that peer institutions were charging -- even those who could have readily paid that going rate.

Today, in theory:
- people who attend Rice and are able to pay the same price as they would to attend a peer institution, do so.
- people who attend Rice and need aid, get it.
Is that so bad?
And whether it's good or bad, I don't think it makes Rice greedy, or incompetent.

(04-26-2016 03:02 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 01:28 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 12:31 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 08:36 AM)davidw Wrote:  I'll say it again; we've got to get on a level playing field with TCU, Baylor, Vandy etc in terms of scholarship money. It simply costs too much to go to Rice on a half scholly for most of these kids, while the other private schools are giving full rides (with need based supplements).

Is there a realistic way that Rice can provide merit-based aid to baseball recruits (on par with what baseball peer schools provide) without having to provide the same aid to essentially every single student on campus? Rice's student body profile makes this a real challenge -- one which TCU, Baylor and even Vandy don't quite face.

Dang. Almost made it the month without stumbling on a post about our scholarship disadvantage. Not surprisingly it comes right on the heels of a weekend series loss. We're up into the top 20 in several polls without the merit-based aid and if it weren't for some early losses and two hard loss games in Hattiesburg we'd be in solid hosting position. Can we save the we're at a disadvantage talks for the offseason and stay focused on winning games? I get we lost a couple but the excuses posts don't make it feel better.

There was a recent thread w comments from a former player stating that in fact that a large percentage of his teammates actually took the need-based route and received more financial support than what would have been received by getting, say, 1/4-1/3 of a schollie

I'm aware. Then all the cry me a river posts stopped and we started winning games. I'm not arguing which preceded the other and it's really not relevant. I was simply acknowledging how nice it was to simply win games and not make excuses. In either order.

(04-26-2016 10:23 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:48 PM)Howlomaha Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:05 PM)75src Wrote:  Rice needs to be cutting tuition instead of raising it. It is too much considering what it was in the past and William Marsh Rice's desire to have Rice tuition free.

Anyone that can say college tuition is rational doesn't have a clue. Universities are sitting on billions of dollars while still charging kids $60k a year to attend school. College should not be a profit making business especially at the expense of students. Perhaps the rich pensions should be funded by the endowments and not off the backs of students.

I think what this really means is that Rice has expanded beyond its endowment's ability to support expenses. If the student body were half its size, would there even be tuition? But the difficulty there is that you need a real presence to be a leader in faculty research and reputation, and there size matters.

A short but reasonably comprehensive summary of Rice's motivation to begin charging tuition -- which revolved around Rice's need to stop discriminating against black applicants in order to receive Federal research funding -- is contained in this article in the April 13, 2016, Thresher: http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2016...ntegration

Also, Rice Centennial Historian Melissa Kean's landmark 2008 book, Desegregating Private Higher Education in the South, gives a wider and more detailed look at this phenomenon at our academic and cultural peer institutions -- Tulane, Duke, Emory and Vanderbilt, in addition to Rice.

(04-26-2016 09:48 PM)Howlomaha Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:05 PM)75src Wrote:  Rice needs to be cutting tuition instead of raising it. It is too much considering what it was in the past and William Marsh Rice's desire to have Rice tuition free.

Anyone that can say college tuition is rational doesn't have a clue. Universities are sitting on billions of dollars while still charging kids $60k a year to attend school. College should not be a profit making business especially at the expense of students. Perhaps the rich pensions should be funded by the endowments and not off the backs of students.

I don't think you understand how an endowment works...

(04-27-2016 05:03 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:48 PM)Howlomaha Wrote:  

(04-26-2016 09:05 PM)75src Wrote:  Rice needs to be cutting tuition instead of raising it. It is too much considering what it was in the past and William Marsh Rice's desire to have Rice tuition free.

Anyone that can say college tuition is rational doesn't have a clue. Universities are sitting on billions of dollars while still charging kids $60k a year to attend school. College should not be a profit making business especially at the expense of students. Perhaps the rich pensions should be funded by the endowments and not off the backs of students.

I don't think you understand how an endowment works...

My thought, precisely.