<p>My turn. I think it is very disingenuous to say one is lower class, dirt poor, and living from check to check…and then also say one is earning $10,000 or so a month. The things do NOT align. And then to add info about the annual Apple vacation, and other expensive new purchases just added fuel to the fire.</p>
<p>The children of this poster, by the way DO sound like terrifically bright kids who were fortunate to gain acceptance into two of the top schools in the country (no, they have NEVER been the most expensive…but they ARE costly). And their parents should be proud if their kids’ achievements.</p>
<p>And for the record…our family income was about the same, AND we live in a very expensive part of the country to boot. I would have scrubbed floors to pay for my kids to go to college…I didn’t need to, but could have. But we did conserve spending for years while our kids were in college, and continue to do so for our own retirement. </p>
<p>My turn. I honestly don’t care when someone humble-brags about their income and how much aid they managed to get. But posters should be careful if the tone they take is of the ilk that, “Any moron can figure out how to shelter their assets and still get need based aid”.</p>
<p>Oh, my turn, too! It’s supposed to be a community, isn’t it? It would be a better community if we were accountable to each other for what we say. I feel that every poster should own his or her own posts and not re-appear in new guises. That was perhaps the major factor behind the collapse of the PR discussion board. CC is wending that way now.</p>
<p>And it’s a better community when people exhibit empathy for other posters, or at least don’t twit them with their own successes, whether in gaming the financial aid system, obtaining pricey toys, having kids who attend highly selective schools, etc. I’m happy to congratulate most posters on their good fortune - but most posters don’t make a point of calling attention to that good fortune in an insensitive way. If you don’t mind twitting other CC members, at least think twice about twitting karma.</p>
<p>CC used to be about lifting each other up not tearing people down</p>
<p>If you don’t like what a person says, address the idea, not attach the person
If you still have to attack, send a PM after asking yourself “why do i feel the need to attack?”<br>
If you can’t do that, then use the ignore feature</p>
<p>People coming to a thread about how a family has 500k in loans aren’t looking for fights among posters on petty issues. </p>
<p>CC “used to be”…? But you just joined in February? I wholeheartedly agree with Frazzled. Hard to feel like a community when there is lacking of ownership of our statements. Seems at times as disengenous as the “I am dirt poor but I buy expensive camera equipment, take expensive vacations, do well in the stock market etc,” that gets under many posters skins. Just sayin</p>
<p>If you want to know with whom we are communicating then people should post a screen cap of their drivers license (white out the birthday and the last 5 digits of the number).</p>
<p>Knowing that I am communicating with @personwithrandomscreenname doesn’t tell me anything.</p>
<p>Getting back to the OP, I think most can agree that it was silly for the parents to agree to take out the loan amounts indicated. </p>
<p>At the risk of putting in another potential derailing thought, this is one of those examples that makes it hard to disagree with people not being able to just go through bankruptcy to get rid of loans. These people made their bed and need to lie in it.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m always amazed that posters who return with new screen names don’t realize how easy it is for the average semi-astute reader to recognize the person. They might fake a different persona for a few posts, but it’s much too hard an act to keep up.</p>
<p>^^^
I agree. Frankly, I am surprised that they aren’t embarrassed about all of this and were willing to have it broadcasted to the world. It’s not as if their message is: “hey, folks, don’t do what we did.” Instead it seems to lament that federal and other aids didn’t reduce their costs.</p>
<p>You claim that sometimes statements are true and sometimes they are not. LOL.
Sometimes the sun shines, sometimes it doesn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When people are attacked, the community breaks down as some starts to feed on itself and some stop posting, as it has here.</p>
<p>If you want to own your statements (what does that even mean?), then people should post their driver’s license or other proof of who they are. Otherwise, as the cartoon says “on the internet, nobody knows you are a dog”…or a French model who has 2 kids in an Ivy and a DD who is an accomplished Doctor and Pianist and has 8% body fat.</p>
<p>Agree. But what I don’t get is that this started with $500k in loans and they are now down to $150k. That is not your typical story about “too much loans, no ability to pay, interest piling up”.</p>
<p>They mention the lack of retirement money, but I read that as that was in addition to the loans, not how they paid them off.</p>
<p>There is something else to this story which seems to be more interesting…would be great to know how they were able to pay off so much so quickly. Maybe whatever that was made them more comfortable taking out the loans in the first place?</p>
<p>@mom2collegekids </p>
<p>That is something I didn’t think about.
I don’t know if they were trying to make a point (“we will do anything for our kids”, “there are problems in the system, and we are an example”) but it doesn’t come off in a positive way.</p>
<p>As mentioned above, a different spin would have been the “Dave Ramsey” approach of “yup, we took out too much, but we took control and were able to reduce it from $500k to $150k by <fill in=”" the=“” blank=“”>"</fill></p>
<p>Going OT just once more … it’s obvious that CC, even now, is a better, more reliable source of information than most online sites, about not only college admissions but a host of other issues. This is because most participants do indeed own their statements. They aren’t making things up. Just because one can misrepresent oneself on the internet doesn’t mean that one should. Let the buyer beware and all that … but fibbing/misrepresenting is hardly a community-building activity. If someone creates a new ID because the old ID was banned, that doesn’t build up the community, either. </p>
<p>I don’t need to see blossom’s driver’s license to know that her posts are reliable and helpful. Ditto thumper, teriwtt, jym626, and a host of others on this thread and throughout CC. </p>
<p>I have two identities on one forum site, using the secondary identity for posting very detailed descriptions of my finances (to get expert assistance in setting asset allocations and such). I use that identity very seldom (maybe every other year or so). I doubt anyone would necessarily bother, but someone with intelligence and curiosity could probably make use of what I’ve posted with my primary identity (and Google, LinkedIn, etc.) and figure out who I am down to my street address. I have probably been too transparent for my own good.</p>
<p>Other than that, I think that using a second identify for the same purposes as the first is the refuge of a scoundrel.</p>
<p>I have sometimes wanted to create a second “evil” identity that would say the things that I sometimes think but don’t say because I’m a nice person. But I won’t let myself do it.</p>
<p>If parents sent kids to expansive places, why is it an issue, it was a free choice. How is a free choice got converted into an issue? I am very lost. We put 2 kids thru college and one of them is almost done with the Medical School. Student loans so far (may change) = $0 (by our free choice that absolutely everybody has).</p>