It was tuition free for everyone until 1966, but lab and housing fees could be charged. It would be nicer if we could afford that instead of using price discrimination.

(09-18-2018 09:23 AM)Rice81 Wrote:  Several years ago I did write in this forum that Rice should go back to its original model of providing free tuition to students from Harris county. Many people in this forum questioned that and asked where the money would come from. I am very glad to see that this is now going to happen but not to just students from Harris County or Texas. I also didn't realize that other elite universities were already doing something very similar.

This is definitely a good move in every respect.

Overall I think this helps the University, but I also think some unintended consequences will flow from this and some additional questions are raised.

1. I'd like to see a financial analysis on how much this will cost and whether we are reaching into the endowment to fund it. What programs, if any, will need to be cut in order to make this plan work financially?

2. How much will tuition rise for families who earn in excess of the threshold?

3. Will this serve to drive away students from wealthy families?

4. If students from wealthy families are driven away, does that hurt future donations to the school?

5. The potential impact on baseball seems to be overwhelmingly positive.

It would be interesting to think about the effects of River Oaks Country Club going to a no-dues/no-initiation fee model, or even the Astros or Texans going to a free ticket model... and think about how those situations would be impacted. It wouldn't all be positive, nor will Rice's move. Different situations, but interesting analogies to consider as we think about what repercussions might arise.

Expanding on your analogy with the astros, you'd need two gate types. One for paying customers and one for non paying. I'd be interested to know how fast people pass through the gates. And how the percentage of people being charged the full price compares to prior years

Also, it isn't free to stand in line. It costs $75 for that privilege. 630 applications ~ cost of tuition.

Terrific Chronicle article just posted on the positive impact to Rice athletics, with quotes from Bloomgren and Bragga...

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/...245555.php

(09-20-2018 05:19 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Terrific Chronicle article just posted on the positive impact to Rice athletics, with quotes from Bloomgren and Bragga...

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/...245555.php

This is behind the Chronicle’s Sports paywall. If you follow the link fron Glynn Hill’s tweet you can read the article.
https://twitter.com/ricechron/status/104...96098?s=21

(09-18-2018 07:28 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 04:40 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  - Federal Pell grants are the largest line item in the fed budget. How many of those go to Rice?

Ask and you shall receive on Rice Pell grants - it was 15% of freshmen were eligible for the grants in 2015, down 1% from 5 years earlier. Wasn't hard to find. Seems to put Rice around the median point of the schools assessed (which were the top rated schools in the US). Seems to be higher than many academic peers.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/lo...eges/2245/

FYI, some updated info: Rice's Sept. 10 news release about the lasest U.S. News college rankings said "14 percent of Rice students received federal Pell Grants in the 2016-17 academic year."

(09-18-2018 07:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don't get me started on farmers... huge net worth, government subsidies, environmental and land-use exemptions, every kind of tax break, and they beat their breasts and complain to the rest of us about how poor they are.

I guess you've never actually owned any land or tried to make a profit on it. While it may be true that the value of the land can be impressive, it isn't liquid. As one poster says, you can't buy clothes, food, or gas for your car by the square foot of your land. If you are lucky enough to have property that some energy company thinks might have harvestable minerals under it, you might get some kind of signing bonus on a lease. Once every twenty five years or so. Those are the lucky ones. Mineral rights in most cases have been sold off decades ago to pay for necessities. And oh by the way, if you refuse to lease to a mineral company, they can usually force your property into some kind of a joint pool with adjacent land owners and gain access for exploration without your agreement. Then counties are taxing you on the real property, plus the potential value of anything you might have growing on it. Before you even harvest it. Depending upon which state it is in you may also be subject to a state income tax. So by the time the various taxing entities get done with you, you are questioning why and if you really want to own that land to begin with. And then there is eminent domain, which is just another way that the many can steal from the few. This is not to mention the liabilities that land ownership brings with it, and then you have people trespassing to hunt, and littering your place with dump truck loads of trash. A few years back when Greece was about to go bankrupt, they were talking about taxing landowners to recover the country's debt. I found it interesting they abandoned that approach when they figured out that those landowners would just have to sell their land to pay those taxes, or transfer it to the government. But they came to understand that too few would buy it, and the government would still be in debt if it owned those properties. All of which causes me to question if land is really worth what people think and say that it is. I think not, unless you have an interested buyer standing there ready to sign the papers.

(09-23-2018 06:41 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 07:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don't get me started on farmers... huge net worth, government subsidies, environmental and land-use exemptions, every kind of tax break, and they beat their breasts and complain to the rest of us about how poor they are.

I guess you've never actually owned any land or tried to make a profit on it. While it may be true that the value of the land can be impressive, it isn't liquid. As one poster says, you can't buy clothes, food, or gas for your car by the square foot of your land. If you are lucky enough to have property that some energy company thinks might have harvestable minerals under it, you might get some kind of signing bonus on a lease. Once every twenty five years or so. Those are the lucky ones. Mineral rights in most cases have been sold off decades ago to pay for necessities. And oh by the way, if you refuse to lease to a mineral company, they can usually force your property into some kind of a joint pool with adjacent land owners and gain access for exploration without your agreement. Then counties are taxing you on the real property, plus the potential value of anything you might have growing on it. Before you even harvest it. Depending upon which state it is in you may also be subject to a state income tax. So by the time the various taxing entities get done with you, you are questioning why and if you really want to own that land to begin with. And then there is eminent domain, which is just another way that the many can steal from the few. This is not to mention the liabilities that land ownership brings with it, and then you have people trespassing to hunt, and littering your place with dump truck loads of trash. A few years back when Greece was about to go bankrupt, they were talking about taxing landowners to recover the country's debt. I found it interesting they abandoned that approach when they figured out that those landowners would just have to sell their land to pay those taxes, or transfer it to the government. But they came to understand that too few would buy it, and the government would still be in debt if it owned those properties. All of which causes me to question if land is really worth what people think and say that it is. I think not, unless you have an interested buyer standing there ready to sign the papers.

Please edit your comment. I did not write that post that you attributed to me.

(09-18-2018 08:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 08:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 08:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 07:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 07:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It will be interesting to see how they would include a home’s value into annual earnings.
I’m wondering if that references what someone’s assets are and if they disqualify you, regardless of annual earnings. So for example, typical assets include a single home, maybe two or three cars, and a 401(k), and if that is it, you would qualify. But if you own five homes and a yatch, but your yearly income was only $150k in 2019, you don’t qualify because you don’t have “typical assets.”

Good.
It would be outrageous if someone from a family with six figures of income and millions of dollars in property was getting a need-based scholarship.

Depends on the property. I know of people with significant real estate assets who have little income. Family farms come to mind. So if Joe's dad is a dairy farmer who works 7/24/365 to earn $100K on his 250 acres of land worth $20K/acre, he should be forced to sell some land or cattle to pay? Now that is outrageous.

Don't get me started on farmers... huge net worth, government subsidies, environmental and land-use exemptions, every kind of tax break, and they beat their breasts and complain to the rest of us about how poor they are.

Most farmers I know are land rich and cash poor. Hard to take 1/4 acre into town and buy clothes with it.
I would consider the environmental and land-use stuff to be more restrictions than exemptions. You try dredging out a stock tank and being fined for disturbing the water flow to a river 100 miles a way.
But since it is such a cushy life, my place is for sale. I can guarantee a .00033% ROI.

That was certainly my case. We were not wealthy by any standard, but I couldn't get anything other than nominal financial aid because of the value of our land holdings. Fortunately, I got an NROTC scholarship (only better deal was football players) and that allowed my parents to pay for my younger brother to go to Auburn. And the Navy might have been the best thing ever to happen to me, in many, many ways.

(09-18-2018 08:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Don't get me started on farmers... huge net worth, government subsidies, environmental and land-use exemptions, every kind of tax break, and they beat their breasts and complain to the rest of us about how poor they are.

(09-23-2018 08:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 06:41 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  

**NOT**RiceLad15** Wrote:Don't get me started on farmers... huge net worth, government subsidies, environmental and land-use exemptions, every kind of tax break, and they beat their breasts and complain to the rest of us about how poor they are.

I guess you've never actually owned any land or tried to make a profit on it..

Please edit your comment. I did not write that post that you attributed to me.

FYI, that was Frizzy who said that...

(09-24-2018 08:22 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 08:28 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Don't get me started on farmers... huge net worth, government subsidies, environmental and land-use exemptions, every kind of tax break, and they beat their breasts and complain to the rest of us about how poor they are.

(09-23-2018 08:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 06:41 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  

**NOT**RiceLad15** Wrote:Don't get me started on farmers... huge net worth, government subsidies, environmental and land-use exemptions, every kind of tax break, and they beat their breasts and complain to the rest of us about how poor they are.

I guess you've never actually owned any land or tried to make a profit on it..

Please edit your comment. I did not write that post that you attributed to me.

FYI, that was Frizzy who said that...

Thanks for doing that editing and posting.

Interesting article on how similar tuition policies have benefited Ivy League athletics:
https://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.co...ncaas.html

(09-18-2018 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 08:58 AM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 08:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 08:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 07:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Good.

It would be outrageous if someone from a family with six figures of income and millions of dollars in property was getting a need-based scholarship.

Depends on the property. I know of people with significant real estate assets who have little income. Family farms come to mind. So if Joe's dad is a dairy farmer who works 7/24/365 to earn $100K on his 250 acres of land worth $20K/acre, he should be forced to sell some land or cattle to pay? Now that is outrageous.

My guess is that a situation like that would be handled in the same manner as anyone else who owns their own business. Not sure how that is handled, though.

The gory details are here: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/sites/defau...ormula.pdf Warning - the 'simplified' worksheet runs to 4 pages, with several additional pages of supplemental tables.

Only a small portion of a business/farm is protected from the asset calculation (max of 40% for a small asset, and decreasing above $130k)

In my case, when I ran through the EFC calculator last year trying to plan for my 5 kids, the oldest of whom is just a couple of years away from entering college, I got an EFC of $85k/yr because we have lived below our means and have amassed a sizable nest egg. So even though my income falls in the "50% off" bracket, I doubt that Rice will actually make that available to us since our EFC shows that we can "afford" the full ticket.

I'm certainly not trying to cry poverty - we're unquestionably well-off - but in terms of bang for the buck I don't see Rice as a viable option if we have to pay full price. It's just not worth 2.3x the cost of TAMU, to pick an example.

I applaud Rice for doing this - it's a step in the right direction and undoubtedly will help the vast majority of students. But at $63k/yr TCA, there's still a segment of the population for whom Rice is either out of reach, or at best a poor financial decision.

I am taking my son for a tour/campus visit next month. I'll be curious to see what the admissions & financial aid folks have to say about it.

If you don't mind reporting back, it would be interesting to hear what the folks who should be in the know, say about how this will actually be implemented, and how assets come in to play with respect to annual earnings in Rice's calc.

The visit was yesterday - there weren't a whole lot more details than what we already know. There was a mention that families with income above $200k could still qualify for some financial aid on a sliding scale. No hard numbers around assets, but the comment was something along the lines of "If you're low income but sitting on a large ranch in Montana, we take that into account."
In response to my question on whether Rice would go off of the FAFSA EFC, the response was to use the Net Price Calculator on the Rice financial aid website, and that it tends to be somewhat more generous. Punching in our numbers did lead to a $20k smaller EFC vs. the FAFSA site, but that just brought it down to very slightly less than Rice TCA vs. nearly 20k over it.

We visited both A&M and Rice yesterday, and my son definitely preferred Rice, but I suspect it's going to be out of our price range.

(09-20-2018 08:31 AM)RiceBull Wrote:  Also, it isn't free to stand in line. It costs $75 for that privilege. 630 applications ~ cost of tuition.

You neglect the fast rise of the so-called 'common application'. Rice was an early adopter of this --- so the application process isnt near the revenue source it once was.

I think I remember hearing somewhere that Rice's use of the common application is one the the *big* drivers in the upsurge of applications to Rice in the last 10 years.

(09-18-2018 07:12 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  As a parent of a high school junior and sophomore (who are not likely to get into or apply to Rice, alas), I hope this signals a trend with universities across the nation.

Question for those in the know - what does this mean?

Students whose families earn between $130,000 and $200,000 (with typical assets) will receive at least a half tuition scholarship.

Are they saying your equity in a house and say cars will be included to get to that figure?

I think they're saying that people won't be allowed to 'game' the system... i.e. If you 'earn' 150k per year because your home is paid for and have arranged for your family trust worth many millions to only pay out that much cash, that you won't be put in the same category as someone who earns 150k/yr as a w-2 employee with no trust and owes 90% of their homes value on a mortgage.

I think by being non-specific, you allow for the myriad of possibilities to hide assets and income too innumerable to be listed.

(10-13-2018 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 08:31 AM)RiceBull Wrote:  Also, it isn't free to stand in line. It costs $75 for that privilege. 630 applications ~ cost of tuition.

You neglect the fast rise of the so-called 'common application'. Rice was an early adopter of this --- so the application process isnt near the revenue source it once was.

I think I remember hearing somewhere that Rice's use of the common application is one the the *big* drivers in the upsurge of applications to Rice in the last 10 years.

Are you suggesting that applicants don't have to pay the fee if they use the common app? I'm pretty sure that's not the case -- the common app makes it easy to apply to a bunch of schools, but you still have to pay the fee for each one.

I'm sure there's some sort of overhead/admin fee such that Rice doesn't see the full $75, but hopefully not too significant.

(10-13-2018 07:27 PM)Owlcatraz Wrote:  

(10-13-2018 09:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 08:31 AM)RiceBull Wrote:  Also, it isn't free to stand in line. It costs $75 for that privilege. 630 applications ~ cost of tuition.

You neglect the fast rise of the so-called 'common application'. Rice was an early adopter of this --- so the application process isnt near the revenue source it once was.

I think I remember hearing somewhere that Rice's use of the common application is one the the *big* drivers in the upsurge of applications to Rice in the last 10 years.

Are you suggesting that applicants don't have to pay the fee if they use the common app? I'm pretty sure that's not the case -- the common app makes it easy to apply to a bunch of schools, but you still have to pay the fee for each one.

I'm sure there's some sort of overhead/admin fee such that Rice doesn't see the full $75, but hopefully not too significant.

This 2013 article said that the non-profit Common App organization charged colleges from $3.75 to $4.75 per submitted application, based on how exclusive each college was with the Common App.

After being sued in 2014 by a new competitor, CollegeNet, Common App was reported to have "introduced a new pricing plan, which is being phased in over five years. It’s based on varying levels of functionality and service — and not on exclusivity. Eventually, the organization says, all participating colleges will pay the same fee for the same product."

But to get back to your question, if the new pricing plan is somewhat comparable to the old one, it would seem that Rice would continue to receive more than 90% of its $75 application fee paid by students seeking admission.