Cuomo w/Sanders unvails plain for tuition-free public higher education in NY

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I suppose no one noticed or cared that poorer students are paying more for mandatory fees than tuition in New York?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I suppose no one noticed or cared that poorer students are paying more for mandatory fees than tuition in New York?

I'm gonna have to call [citation needed] on that one.

Take Stony Brook. Fees are about 40% as much as tuition.
http://www.stonybrook.edu/undergraduate-admissions/cost-and-financial-aid/

The maximum TAP award is 90% of tuition.
https://www.hesc.ny.gov/partner-access/financial-aid-professionals/programs-policies-and-procedures-guide-to-grants-and-scholarship-programs/appendix-e-new-york-s-tuition-assistance-program-a-history.html

Therefore, the poorest students were paying about 4 times more for fees than tuition.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I suppose no one noticed or cared that poorer students are paying more for mandatory fees than tuition in New York?

I'm gonna have to call [citation needed] on that one.

Take Stony Brook. Fees are about 40% as much as tuition.
http://www.stonybrook.edu/undergraduate-admissions/cost-and-financial-aid/

The maximum TAP award is 90% of tuition.
https://www.hesc.ny.gov/partner-access/financial-aid-professionals/programs-policies-and-procedures-guide-to-grants-and-scholarship-programs/appendix-e-new-york-s-tuition-assistance-program-a-history.html

Therefore, the poorest students were paying about 4 times more for fees than tuition.

I don't really see your point in this example. It seemed like you were trying to argue about unfairness towards poor students when the reason fees are higher than tuition for some students is due to awards that can nearly eliminate tuition completely, which of course would then make fees, however small, greater than the cost of tuition. It doesn't really make as much sense to deal with fee costs relative to tuition costs as opposed to absolute costs when thinking of what poorer students can overall afford. Also, many schools will not be as cheap as $6470 for in-state residents, and many of the poorer students will likely not receive the maximum awards available.

If the point of plans for tuition-free higher education is to reduce the overall costs for poorer students in achieving a higher level of education, does it really matter if those reductions come from fees or tuition? They will both add up to a net cost for the student. This isn't to say that added fees on top of tuition are a good idea, but that a move to eliminate tuition for poorer students is clearly carried out with the interests of students in mind. I don't think a student will particularly care whether he saves $2500 from fee reductions or from tuition eliminations.

This is for in state students at state schools, so I think only graduate students would pay more than that. And the fees are mandatory even for the poorest kids. This doesn't save the poorest kids $2500, they still have to pay that, it saves them just $647, since TAP was covering 90% of their tuition and 0% of their fees.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I suppose no one noticed or cared that poorer students are paying more for mandatory fees than tuition in New York?

I'm gonna have to call [citation needed] on that one.

Take Stony Brook. Fees are about 40% as much as tuition.
http://www.stonybrook.edu/undergraduate-admissions/cost-and-financial-aid/

The maximum TAP award is 90% of tuition.
https://www.hesc.ny.gov/partner-access/financial-aid-professionals/programs-policies-and-procedures-guide-to-grants-and-scholarship-programs/appendix-e-new-york-s-tuition-assistance-program-a-history.html

Therefore, the poorest students were paying about 4 times more for fees than tuition.

I don't really see your point in this example. It seemed like you were trying to argue about unfairness towards poor students when the reason fees are higher than tuition for some students is due to awards that can nearly eliminate tuition completely, which of course would then make fees, however small, greater than the cost of tuition. It doesn't really make as much sense to deal with fee costs relative to tuition costs as opposed to absolute costs when thinking of what poorer students can overall afford. Also, many schools will not be as cheap as $6470 for in-state residents, and many of the poorer students will likely not receive the maximum awards available.

If the point of plans for tuition-free higher education is to reduce the overall costs for poorer students in achieving a higher level of education, does it really matter if those reductions come from fees or tuition? They will both add up to a net cost for the student. This isn't to say that added fees on top of tuition are a good idea, but that a move to eliminate tuition for poorer students is clearly carried out with the interests of students in mind. I don't think a student will particularly care whether he saves $2500 from fee reductions or from tuition eliminations.

This is for in state students at state schools, so I think only graduate students would pay more than that. And the fees are mandatory even for the poorest kids. This doesn't save the poorest kids $2500, they still have to pay that, it saves them just $647, since TAP was covering 90% of their tuition and 0% of their fees.

I was just mentioning an elimination of mandatory fees in that part as a hypothetical contrast to the elimination of tuition. For this example, eliminating fees would save a student $2556 while eliminating tuition costs altogether would likely save most students more than that (since I assume most students would not receive the maximum 90% cover). The main thing is that this is still a plan to save poor students money, regardless of whether they are still paying fees or not. Maybe it wouldn't save as much for some students with the highest award rates at some schools, but it would still be some. Just because there would still be some costs does not mean the politicians proposing such plans do not care or are ignorant to these issues.

Well, the fees are still quite expensive and regressive, so lets not get too excited about this. College remains quite unaffordable for the poor. Lots of people get the maximum 90% of tuition, which means that Cuomo only decreased the amount they pay for tuition and fees by 20%. The fees have been rapidly increasing, so I doubt you have to go back too many years to find where they'd be better off than after Cuomo's plan kicks in.