Really? Back when I went to college there was certainly sliding scales of need based financial aid but a lot of it was through loans or guaranteed work-study arrangements. Full-ride scholarships existed, but were relatively rare. They definitely tried to meet the goal that anyone who could get admitted could go but that isn’t the same as zero tuition.
Even if this is only slightly more generous or notable than their peers, I am glad they are both publicizing and simplifying the process. Making sure that people who could take advantage of the program know about it is also important.
Ivy Leagues want smart poor students for their image. If you scored well enough to get into one, they want you there. You are more likely to raise the academic standing of the institution than legacy admissions of the idle rich.
Plus statistically you are more likely to make something of yourself other than take over Dad’s estate/company/country
She’s been shilling for for-profit “schools” during her entire tenure and her family makes a lot of money off the student loan bubble. For her and those who think like her, a high-profile announcement like this by an established university sets what they consider to be a bad example that goes against their “free” market fundamentalism.
I recall reading about some Libertarian dolt who was complaining about Europeans having free college tuition as if they were putting taco trucks on every corner. The horror.
While attending UT, I visited a friend at Rice for a spring break back in the early '70s (they didn’t have it at the same time, for some reason). Beautiful campus absolutely isolated in the midst of Houston. Strong academically. The only problem yr gonna have with going to Rice is that you are going to have to qualify for it first, which won’t be easy. Oh yes, that spring break was soaked with hallucinogens and pot. Such fun.
About ten years ago, I contacted Rice to see about returning as an old guy to get a new degree.
They assigned me a counselor with whom I was in contact weekly for several months. That counselor told me then that Rice was implementing policies that said no student would graduate with student loan debt.
I went there tuition-free in the 80s and never had to go into debt for books or anything else. Student focus is a big part of what Rice is.
I’ve a friend’s Mom that went to Berea College in KY. They’ve been tuition free for a long time. There’s also a student work requirement. Neat institution.
Neat, for sure. I have two kids there now, and their room and board is free, too. They even add money to your account to cover things like printing, and they paid for one kid’s glasses. Every student gets a laptop, which you can keep if you graduate. Not that easy to get in, though.
I’m curious how “wealthy student” is defined by RU. When I went to college I ran into a couple of issues (even though I was in my late twenties/early thirties and independent in terms of federal aid) because my parents’ financial information was unobtainable and irrelevant. Some schools require it, but even though it’s for understandable reasons, I know I wasn’t the only student in that boat .Some schools that purport to be “need blind” in terms of ensuring all students can afford to attend have no way around this.
I’m glad to see this return to the classic policies on this point, though we can hopefully avoid the rest of the founding principles–Rice was founded to provide free education to poor Texas white boys. (I attended in the late 80’s, with $5K tuition and $5K room and board, and this is literally how WM Rice’s intentions were always described, though I haven’t seen any primary sources.)
When I visited for my 20th reunion and heard about how high tuition had gotten, I was saddened since I knew there was no way my kids could afford to go, and I’d loved it there. This brings things back to something more like affordability, but my kids have turned out to have issues which mean they’re not going to be getting in regardless. C’est la vie.
One point that might not come across from the numbers here: those kids in the free-tuition-but-not-free-housing category might seem like they could just live off-campus and save a fair bit, but at Rice living on campus has always been the preferred state. When I was there, you had to live on campus one year, but pretty much everyone who could wanted to be there all four years; they’d guarantee you the right to be on campus for three years, and held lotteries to see who’d get to be there a fourth year. I suppose things could have changed, but it was a pretty fundamental part of student culture.
Give me a decent salary and a decent pension and healthcare program, and I’ll be more than happy to take a position teaching some history courses there. Sounds like a great idea to me.
