I don't think anybody in academia engages Carey's work any more because he just says the same thing over and over again, with little nuance, and because he's been so willing to promote ed-tech "disruptors". The point about the mis-labelling of "financial aid" is something that people in higher ed say all the time, just a bit more gingerly, since it amounts to the single existing example of "soak the rich" in American life.
Well, it's not like academia is short on people who just say the same thing over and over with little nuance...
The "soak the rich" aspect is only true to a point-- I think Carey is right to note that the people who get bit worst by the games played with financial aid are mostly first-generation students and families. The well-off know how the game is played, and can do quite a bit better at hiding their ability to pay than the poor do. And they also have a better sense of what's worth paying for and what isn't.
I think the way that first-gen students and families are affected is different. He's got a point there but he's made it before and so have a lot of people, many of them academics who actually study and work with first-gen students and who have a lot of nuanced suggestions about what to do about it, some of which have been implemented. I don't ever feel that Carey in his policy prescriptions is actually very engaged by or interested in first-gen families; they're a spike in the club he uses to beat up higher ed in general.
The issue for first-gen low-income families is simply that many of them don't know that a lot of selective privates--even some of the less selective ones--will discount their tuitions so heavily, to the point of charging nothing--to academically qualified applicants who are first-gen low-income. The families see the sticker price and they think that's just what it costs for everybody, and it is very hard to change that impression even when there's plenty of information out there. The one high-performing student at a badly underresourced public high school doesn't have a school counselor who knows the reality, they probably won't get a chance to see college representatives who can explain how it works, etc. And yeah, it's also true that the FAFSA is hideous ordeal for vulnerable low-income families; I've talked with lots of low-income students about what a confusing, violating thing it is to fill out. But the basic message for first-gen low-income students who have strong academic qualifications is that it might well be cheaper to go to a private college or university than to go to a public university in their own state, depending on which state that is.
The only other group that I think has a real gripe are not the really well-off who end up paying full price (whether at highly selective or not-very-selective privates). There's still a fair number of households out there where they don't even bother to ask about financial aid and don't turn in the paperwork because it's no big deal to pay that amount of tuition. I think the households that get hit pretty hard are folks just below that wealth tier who make comfortable upper-middle-class incomes and maybe even get a slight discount off the sticker price but for whom the tuition bill for their kids is still a major chunk of their household wealth--those are often households which are very invested in the cultural capital of college/university and where parents feel they would like to provide their kids some ability to choose where to go.
I don't think anybody in academia engages Carey's work any more because he just says the same thing over and over again, with little nuance, and because he's been so willing to promote ed-tech "disruptors". The point about the mis-labelling of "financial aid" is something that people in higher ed say all the time, just a bit more gingerly, since it amounts to the single existing example of "soak the rich" in American life.
Well, it's not like academia is short on people who just say the same thing over and over with little nuance...
The "soak the rich" aspect is only true to a point-- I think Carey is right to note that the people who get bit worst by the games played with financial aid are mostly first-generation students and families. The well-off know how the game is played, and can do quite a bit better at hiding their ability to pay than the poor do. And they also have a better sense of what's worth paying for and what isn't.
I think the way that first-gen students and families are affected is different. He's got a point there but he's made it before and so have a lot of people, many of them academics who actually study and work with first-gen students and who have a lot of nuanced suggestions about what to do about it, some of which have been implemented. I don't ever feel that Carey in his policy prescriptions is actually very engaged by or interested in first-gen families; they're a spike in the club he uses to beat up higher ed in general.
The issue for first-gen low-income families is simply that many of them don't know that a lot of selective privates--even some of the less selective ones--will discount their tuitions so heavily, to the point of charging nothing--to academically qualified applicants who are first-gen low-income. The families see the sticker price and they think that's just what it costs for everybody, and it is very hard to change that impression even when there's plenty of information out there. The one high-performing student at a badly underresourced public high school doesn't have a school counselor who knows the reality, they probably won't get a chance to see college representatives who can explain how it works, etc. And yeah, it's also true that the FAFSA is hideous ordeal for vulnerable low-income families; I've talked with lots of low-income students about what a confusing, violating thing it is to fill out. But the basic message for first-gen low-income students who have strong academic qualifications is that it might well be cheaper to go to a private college or university than to go to a public university in their own state, depending on which state that is.
The only other group that I think has a real gripe are not the really well-off who end up paying full price (whether at highly selective or not-very-selective privates). There's still a fair number of households out there where they don't even bother to ask about financial aid and don't turn in the paperwork because it's no big deal to pay that amount of tuition. I think the households that get hit pretty hard are folks just below that wealth tier who make comfortable upper-middle-class incomes and maybe even get a slight discount off the sticker price but for whom the tuition bill for their kids is still a major chunk of their household wealth--those are often households which are very invested in the cultural capital of college/university and where parents feel they would like to provide their kids some ability to choose where to go.