Harvard says tuition will be free for families making $200K or less

Who Benefits and Student Demographics

• Some commenters assume Harvard mostly admits rich students; others cite Crimson survey data suggesting a majority of undergrads come from families under ~$200–250k.
• Skepticism remains that this mirrors the broader US income distribution or truly represents lower- and middle-income families.
• It’s emphasized that Ivy League cohorts are often “middle class” by elite standards, plus a significant number of very wealthy students.

Policy Details, Misconceptions, and Edge Cases

• Several point out this is not entirely new, but an expansion (from a previous ~$150k threshold) and that aid is on a sliding scale, not an all-or-nothing cutoff.
• Under ~$100k, Harvard reportedly covers tuition, housing, food, and services; above $200k, some aid may still be available depending on assets and family situation.
• Tools like Harvard’s net-price calculator ask for family size, kids in college, income, and assets—implying these all factor into aid. “Typical assets” is seen as vague.
• One commenter notes assets are hit at ~5%/year, so low income with high savings still leads to substantial expected contribution.

Cost of Living and “Well Off” Debate

• Strong disagreement over whether $200k households can ever be “not well off.”
• Some argue high-cost areas (e.g., SF), large families, childcare, housing, healthcare, and chronic health issues can strain such incomes.
• Others counter that most hardship at that level is budgeting/lifestyle choice, and kids “don’t cost that much,” prompting pushback from parents in expensive cities.

Sticker Price, Revenue Motives, and Endowment

• Confusion over who really pays “sticker”; the article says ~55% get aid, implying ~45% pay list price, though some aid still exists above $200k.
• One view: high sticker + variable discounts is price discrimination to extract close to each family’s max willingness to pay, analogous to “call for pricing” SaaS.
• Others reply that if pure revenue-maximization were the goal, Harvard could charge more, admit only full-pay students, or grow class size—but reputational and mission constraints limit this.
• Debate over whether operating costs are inherently “insanely expensive” versus inflated because Harvard can afford it; most agree the credential and network are major parts of the value.
• Some argue Harvard’s ~$55B endowment could cover undergraduate tuition entirely; others note withdrawal-rate constraints and restricted-purpose funds.

Admissions, Equity, and Gaming

• Concerns that geographic cost differences mean a $150k Iowa family qualifies while a $210k California family struggles.
• Others stress that aid is not a strict step function and that human review/appeals (FAFSA-style “special circumstances”) can account for outliers.
• Commenters speculate about “gaming” by lowering reported income (e.g., early retirement), but a first-hand account says asset-based assessment blocks simple manipulation.
• Some fear that “need-blind” claims may erode if free tuition expands, nudging admissions toward more full-pay students, though Harvard explicitly says finances don’t affect admission decisions.

Student Loans and the Broader US System

• Several explain that most US students at private universities don’t pay the sticker price and that federal income-based repayment reduces effective student-loan burden for many.
• Others push back that this ignores those who don’t complete degrees, take on high debt for low-ROI programs, or fall through bureaucratic cracks (e.g., “paper rich” but unsupported families).
• For-profit universities are singled out as predatory, exploiting confusion about aid.

Public Funding and Taxation Debate

• Some call for taxpayer-funded or wealth-funded tuition broadly, arguing college and healthcare should be public goods.
• Others counter that funding universal free college can’t be done by taxing only “the super wealthy”; in other countries, middle and upper-middle classes pay heavy taxes too.
• Underlying disagreement: whether focusing tax hikes only on the top 1% is serious policy or “cosplay” that ignores the much larger base in the top 10%.

Comparisons and Ideological Reactions

• A French commenter notes elite schools there are expensive for the rich but heavily subsidized and progressive by income; universities are nearly free, seen as a working “social elevator.”
• Some US commenters express enthusiasm and hope other elite schools follow; others see income-based pricing as “anti-American” or “lipstick on the pig” of ever-rising tuition that consumes discretionary income.