What Davidson’s New Aid Policy Doesn’t Say
Davidson announced last week that starting with the class entering fall 2027, families earning $85,000 or less will pay nothing for tuition, housing, meals, and fees, and families earning up to $175,000 will pay no tuition. The college called it a continuation of its status as “a consistent leader in financial aid, affordability, and accessibility for nearly two decades.” President Doug Hicks called the program “extraordinary and rare.”
How can something be both extraordinary and rare if it’s being done in institutions across the country, and at a better rate than ours?
Of course it is important to acknowledge that a fair policy that gets more low- and middle-income students into Davidson without loans is great, full stop. What is worth questioning, is that the students and the public have been left with more questions than answers in the wake of the announcement. The announcement does answer some important questions, but leaves others to speculation, including how the policy will be funded, why it applies only to future classes, and what it changes relative to Davidson’s existing aid model. If Davidson can pull this off without costing current students anything, in aid, in quality of life, in the things that make the school so exceptional, then Davidson deserves every bit of praise it’s giving itself.
Late, not Leader
Davidson’s historical policy, meeting full demonstrated need with grants instead of loans, dates back to 2007. This announcement doesn’t change that policy, as Jay Pfeifer, Director of Media Relations, noted when asked for comment. The change we see then, is a delineation of incomes being marketed as a step forward.
In fact, Davidson isn’t leading in this charge as they wish to think: Harvard went free for families earning under $100,000, and tuition free for families earning up to $200,000 beginning with the 2025–26 academic year. MIT, Carnegie Mellon, UT Austin, Penn, UMass, and Michigan all expanded need-based financial aid in 2024–25, with different income thresholds and benefits. Yale announced that it will make tuition free for families earning up to $200,000 beginning in 2026–27; under its current policy, families earning under about $150,000 generally pay no tuition. Princeton covers the full cost of attendance for families earning up to $150,000, and most families under $250,000 pay no tuition. Caltech is tuition free for families earning under $200,000. In fact, Washington and Lee, one of Davidson’s named peer institutions, has been free for families making under $75,000 since fall 2014, and expanded to tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less in 2017. By the time Davidson made this announcement, in July 2026, it was simply following a trend that seems to come close to standard practice at this point, at a threshold lower than almost everyone else on that list.
The Grandfather Clause
The new pricing only applies to students entering in fall 2027. Current students, including the Class of 2030 entering this fall, are not covered by the new pricing model. I asked Jay Pfeifer why the school raises the cost of attendance on students already enrolled in real time but is waiting two years to extend a cost decrease. His answer failed to address the question: “Current students’ aid packages will not look significantly different than those students entering in the fall of 2027 and beyond. The pricing has been simplified, not changed.” Davidson doesn’t wait to apply price increases only to new classes as they arrive on campus, it only waits when the number is moving the other way.
There are north of 2,000 students paying Davidson’s bills right now. The announcement reads like it was written for families deciding where to apply next year, not for them, and they’re left watching a new wave of students arrive paying nothing while their own bills stay the same.
Where the Money Comes From
When posed the question, “How is this policy funded: increased endowment draw, tuition increases for families above $175,000, changes to how need is calculated for that band, or some combination?” Pfeifer told me Davidson spent about $80 million on financial aid last year and expects to spend $85 million this year, a roughly 6% increase, and said the policy, “does not shift the burden of financial aid to other populations nor will it lead to exceptional increases in other expenses.” Davidson hasn’t said how many additional students it expects to newly qualify for full tuition under the wider $85-175k band, which is the number we would need to see if their projected increase in aid expenditure will follow, or whether the gap eventually shows up somewhere else: in tuition for families above the line, or perhaps in a meal plan that already gets more complaints about cost than it gets credit for quality.
At least we can rest assured that Davidson is exempt from the new federal endowment tax because it enrolls fewer than 3,000 students, so the pressure that’s pushing larger endowments like Emory’s toward tuition hikes isn’t really in play here. The simpler question is whether the money the college is willing to pay will cover what is promised.
The Selling Point?
Chris Marsicano, the Chair of Education Studies and Director of the newly created Institute for Public Good, shared in a LinkedIn post the day of the announcement that the policy “isn’t much different from what Davidson has done since 2007.” He also reported, based on external studies, that roughly half of American households would qualify for free tuition and fees under the new threshold, and about 80% would qualify for free tuition alone.
Davidson admits domestic students without regard to their ability to pay. It has now guaranteed full aid to an income band that, by Marsicano’s own numbers, covers around 80 percent of American families for free tuition and about half for free tuition and fees. So the question is: with a fixed class size and need-blind admission, is there any internal planning for what happens if an unusually large share of qualified applicants in a given year come in under $85,000? Pfeifer’s full answer to that question: “Davidson’s deep commitment to access and affordability dates back to 2007, when the college eliminated loans for aid packages. We are unwavering in our commitment to making an education accessible and affordable to all qualified students.” That response reiterates Davidson’s longstanding commitment to aid but does not directly address the question. Without a more detailed answer, it remains unclear how Davidson plans for fluctuations in student financial need while maintaining a need-blind admissions policy. The worry is that the school will have to cap the number of students at different rates of need, or that tuition for students that can “pay” based on their calculated output will soar even more.
In the end, Davidson’s financial aid is real, and it matters enormously to the students who get it, and to the culture it brings to the school. This announcement could be completely positive, and an unambiguously good story. Whether it stays one depends on whether Davidson can actually show its work. Will this aid cost students in other ways? An announcement built on words like “leader” and “extraordinary” deserves to be checked against what it actually changes, who it reaches, and what needs further clarification. So far, every direct question in this piece has gotten the same answer: a reminder that Davidson has been generous since 2007, and that’s a history lesson, not an explanation.