Yes, I am one of those lucky students whom the Undergraduate Financial Aid Office has deemed worthy of full aid via the decade-old “no-loan policy.” Up to this point, my parents have not been required to pay anything toward my education, and I am still unfettered by loans, by working a meager 10 hours a week. While most of my friends in other schools will spend the next 10 years or so after their college graduation paying off debt, I am in good shape to leave my college expenses behind.
To those friends taking out loans, this flaunting would appear obnoxious. To others on this campus who celebrate the same blessing, it is standard. To students who can afford tuition and all the other costs of attending Princeton, this could be slightly annoying. But it is much more upsetting to those who do not fall into either of these latter two categories.
Though Princeton and its peer schools provide a generous grant program for those admitted students in need, there is a body of students forced to pay for their Ivy League education exclusively through loans. For families with an annual income of $100,000–$120,000, the University expects an average contribution of almost $15,000 a year. This sounds reasonable — one-seventh of a family’s income isn’t too much to ask for. But the financial aid application from which this contribution is derived is both questionable and inconsistent.
Some students on this campus are from the city proper or the suburbs surrounding New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Chicago. Though living there is by no means cheap, these families are bound to those locations by the jobs that boost their incomes. The Princeton Financial Aid Application asks for the parents’ rent or mortgage payments, as well as the state in which they reside (to calculate the highest possible tax for the area) to allow for a partial assessment of this cost of living. Unfortunately, the potent expense of working in the city — like commutes and meals — is left out of the picture, lumped in with everything else in the “other expenses” section.
Just over half of Princeton students receive financial aid, with an average grant of more than $32,200. The actual distribution of that aid among certain income groups remains relatively mysterious. As I was filling out my own financial aid application earlier this week, I realized just how much of the provided information could require parents to contribute more money than their disposable income. Retirement plans, real estate values and assets all collectively work to seal the fate of a student’s family.
Anjali Bisaria ’12 has been penalized for inaccessible funds. Her family is successful in the professional world: Both parents work, and her father has even started a business. They earn roughly $150,000 a year, and though Princeton says the average grant for this income is $20,000, she does not get a penny of it, thanks to her parents’ retirement funds. Bisaria’s sister graduated from Princeton in 2008 and was also refused aid, forcing the family to take out loans for both of their college careers, totaling $400,000. This amount has been tacked onto the house payments they are already currently paying — though this, too, is supposed to be accounted for on the financial aid application for the University to use when deciding the amount of aid. Another anonymous student reported the same income with the same result: Though his parents earn $150,000, they must pay a third of that income toward his schooling (and $30,000 more when his sister attends college next year), while still paying the bills in the suburbs of Chicago. Since the homes in their community are worth about $400,000, they see the financial aid office as anything but a savior.
To some of us, Princeton financial aid is generous. It has at one time or another probably been hailed as revolutionary — an advancement of the ideal that anyone can go to college. It is time, however, to reevaluate the criteria for the distribution of that generosity. Otherwise, while both the wealthy and the lower class sail through Princeton without a financial care, the middleman will don the greatest burden of all.
Joey Barnett is a sophomore from Tulare, Calif. He can be reached at jbarnett@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
