http://politicalblindspot.com/harvard-university-offers-free-tuition-to-low-income-families/ 

As one of the most prestigious Universities in the world that has been competing for the global number 1 spot for years, Harvard is finally matching its biggest American competitors, such as Yale and Stanford, in offering free tuition to low income families. (e.g. Yale: http://admissions.yale.edu/financial-aid-prospective-students) Harvard’s selling points have consistently been its reputation for giving a high quality education, being a leader in the Ivy League, and the success of their graduates; affordability, albeit there are existing financial aid options, is not exactly the first thing that pops into mind when discussing Harvard in a casual dinner conversation. As a consequence, Harvard has positioned itself as a more “rich people’s path and poor people’s dream”, since most students coming from low income families are struggling to meet the financial demand or are in considerable debt from loans.  With the help of this newly implemented financial aid options, I believe Harvard can expand its target market and allow a broader audience to become appealed to the school as price wouldn’t be one of the factors to deter students from a Harvard education. Harvard education. Also, another benefit for the school would be the student portion of the stakeholders would feel a stronger affective commitment towards the school.

Should Tim Hortons change the temperature of its scalding hot beverage for one injured customer? Definitely, yes. More importantly, should Tim Hortons offer an apology to the woman who received second and third degree burns from their beverage? Absolutely. Perhaps this is just one instance, but it is the food chain’s social responsibility to ensure what they are selling is safe for consumers. An apology could risk a bigger audience knowing the incident, but could redeem any risks of ruining reputation. Not acknowledging the occurrence does not obliterate the problem, especially when it can happen every time a consumer leaves with a beverage from the restaurant. It is in every stakeholder’s best interest to sell and purchase safe products; a label stating “Be careful! It’s hot!” does not equate to “This will cause a third degree burn if you sip it during time of purchase”. Tim Hortons is still liable for the product it sold after it leaves the restaurant, much like a consumer purchasing a faulty iPad. The attribution of the blame goes back to Tim Hortons and not the lady who got burned.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/should-tim-hortons-change-its-beverage-temperature-ways-because-of-one-scalded-customer/article14245766/