Like so many things, I suppose this depends upon one's viewpoint. Lemme offer just a couple thoughts on a most complex subject of higher ed finances and its subset of "financial aid":
1. I think it's a real "stretch" to suggest and describe the difference between in-state and outta-state tuition is scholarship or financial aid to the residents. Rather, there's a surcharge for non-residents. Not a discount to locals. Neither pricetag is based upon actual cost of providing services.
2. For USNA and other SAs, separating military training from scholastic preparation (academic, extra-curriculars, athletics - both inter collegiate and intramural, technology needs, etc.) seems inappropriate. It's all or none required to complete the course of study. Those aspects are simply unique and essential to the SAs educational mission, and because they are is not reason to suggest they're something distinctly separate. No different than the College of Wooster funding its Independent Study Project for every student. Gotta do it, even if it's different than other institutions.
3. My guess is that the figure offered up @ the SAs is probably alot more accurate than we can imagine in attempting to delineate actual cost of Academy operation and the exceptional equipment, personnel and facilities essential to this extraordinary experience. I'll bet this is not much of a stretch at all. Heck 4 years as an on-campus residing, communications major @ George Washington University is well over $225K sticker price. And think of the many alternative streams of revenue available to GWU and other competing institutions that are NOT available to USNA; consider every USNA student has 3 "summer school" sessions, that all must live on campus all 4 years, that all must learn to sail, etc. @ USNA .... Well, it would be no stretch at all to think that USNA could be well over $300K+. As we think about this, the figure could be very low in reality. In fact once one gets perspective on this, $300K may be one of the best educational bargains on the planet.
4. Is reporting is as such a "stretch" or some kind of misnomer? I don't know how it could be. If that's what it costs, that's what it costs. And to say that all fees and expenses are covered ... well that's just the truth.
5. Because other places DO NOT report those expenses covered through research subsidy grants, private philanthropy, sale of sponsorship rites to Pepsi and the like, football tix and stadium boxes, public subsidies, etc. ... Well, that's their pricing policy and tradition. They don't tell the customers this because it would lead to even greater outcry about why in the world it costs Little Local College not $60 million annually but in reality $120 million to allegedly educate 1,500 19 year olds every year. Now that would raise some real eyebrows and interest among those working for the taxpayers, whoever they may be.
6. And that of course fails to even address the foregone tax revenue, i.e. taxes NOT paid because donors contributed to the U. That's real $$.
So yes there is a differential, but were private or non-SA public colleges/U's to report the funds not charged to its students as financial aid, they'd 1) be the laughing stock of the higher education world, and 2) run great risk of being considered a fraudulent operation, and 3) run the even greater risk of the public wanting and demanding to know what the $$ is spent on. Now that could open a real can of worms.
