<p>Can those of you so "confused" about this situation really not understand this mother's intention or her dilemma? I can. I know exactly of the problem she speaks.</p>
<p>One of the best approaches to problem solving involves imagining the "ultimate" - even if the "ultimate" is unattainable - then applying the constraints of reality to get a working solution. So, in this scenario, the search for the "ultimate" involves visiting dream colleges - even if they are unaffordable. And, voila, they find that Georgetown is her daughter's "dream school." Now, as the mother applies the constraints of reality - in this case the parent's finances - they realize that they can't find that which makes Georgetown her daughter's choice at a price they can afford - here simply isn't an affordable school which offers whatever it is that made her daughter choose Georgetown.</p>
<p>So the mother faces a dilemma (the definition of a dilemma, btw, is a problem with two or more solutions, neither/none of which is acceptable). Haven't we all been their with our children - wanting the best for them and being unable to make "it" happen? So perhaps she's reconsidered the advice she so easily passed out when she wasn't emotionally involved. Maybe she finds herself considering using her retirement savings to pay tuition, or taking out a home equity loan or some other decision a financial planner would advise against. </p>
<p>Once again, I find it interesting that those who don't have to make such decisions - those who don't have to consider $$$ when choosing among schools because they are assured of significant aid - to be the most judgmental regarding the struggles the rest of us face.</p>
<p>reflectivemom - I agree with you completely.</p>
<p>If Kristoff and her ex-husband do not qualify for financial aid, then it is likely that they have significant income, savings or other resources to tap for tuition. If she and her ex own homes in So. Cal., where the average home price is well over $500,000, then it is likely that they have sufficient home equity to cover part of the tuition.</p>
<p>I do not understand the thinking that we must not tap into home equity to pay for college. Exactly what are people accumulating equity for, if not to use it for something as important as their child's education? And assuming you have retirement savings, IS there something more important that you are preserving your home equity for? Unlike consumer student loans, home equity loans can be amortized over lengthy terms and interest is deductible.</p>
<p>Also, Congress specifically drafted the 401k retirement plan provisions to allow for borrowing against them for college costs without penalty.</p>
<p>In the perfect world of CC, no one would fork over a cent of their own money to pay for college. The reality is, that using home equity and borrowing against 401k plans can be part of a viable plan to pay for college costs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can those of you so "confused" about this situation really not understand this mother's intention or her dilemma? I can. I know exactly of the problem she speaks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, yes. But most of us wouldn't dare to pretend to be an expert on it. (Especially prior to having actually done it!)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once again, I find it interesting that those who don't have to make such decisions - those who don't have to consider $$$ when choosing among schools because they are assured of significant aid - to be the most judgmental regarding the struggles the rest of us face.
<p>I'm always befuddled when I see it argued that those who need financial aid have an easier time than those who don't.</p>
<p>Rmom--I don't understand your reasoning at all. The price of Georgetown et al was already deemed out of reach, by choice, for this family. So by what kind of logic was it necessary to experience this out of reach choice, especially when Samantha had been, by her mother's description, thrilled with the idea of a within-reach choice? What did that add to the equation?</p>
<p>I've looked at schools with my kids when we didn't qualify for aid, and I am now paying for college at an income which does qualify.</p>
<p>And you know what? It is, duh, easier to have more money than less. I have less now by choice, but it would be utterly dismissive of reality to say that I was at a disadvantage in my more affluent days.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm always befuddled when I see it argued that those who need financial aid have an easier time than those who don't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think those needing aid have an easier time in life in general, but anyone who does not have to consider $$ when choosing a college (for any reason, rich or poor, etc) must certainly have an easier time deciding among them.</p>
<p>reflectivemom: I an earlier post I agreed with you that this is a dilemma many of us find ourselves in. Why I fault the author is the hard line dismissive tone she takes toward her daughter. "Samantha knows what we can afford, now it's up to her" type comments. My kids are too emotionally invested in this decision without the longterm perspective being 50+ gives to handle such a decision on their own.</p>
<p>garland: I agree. And for some people (my kids) qualifying for financial aid definitely cuts down on choices become some schools immediately dismiss them because they are not "free" to school. I am very grateful it worked out in our case, and both are at dream schools, but I attribute this a bit to research and planning but mostly to luck. Having more money puts the family more in the driver's seat, a nice place to be.</p>
<p>As an aside, I agree that I would have gladly tapped into home equity to pay for college -- that was my plan. My "savings plan" was paying off our house in 15 years. But as they say, man proposes, God disposes. H needed that very money to preserve his fragile business, so onto financial aid ( not anyway near full ride.) I would much rather have remortgaged my house to send kids to college than have to resort to financial aid.</p>
<p>Bay--But who has an easier time? what family who needs FA can count on getting it? Even people with EFC's of 0 can't assume they're going to get into one of the few, extremely selective, meets-full-need schools. Anywhere else, they have to consider money when choosing a college. And the vast amount of FA eligible students don't have 0 EFC's and have to hope that aid meets their needs. I can't understand thinking it is easier.</p>
<p>I readily admit that my financial aid experience is limited and I am not qualified to argue the fine points of it. My D attends an Ivy, which provides free tuition for families making less than $60k. We do not qualify for aid, and with 3 kids, it took and will take some financial maneuvering to be sure we can offer all of them appropriate opportunities. Certainly those with incomes less than $60,000 or unlimited funds had an easier time deciding whether this school was the proper choice for their child.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do not understand the thinking that we must not tap into home equity to pay for college. Exactly what are people accumulating equity for...
[/quote]
One must be careful about tapping into home equity or they might just find themselves without a home! Tapping into the equity will result in higher payments that might not be compatible with one's retirement plans. I know a number of people (especially elderly) who have a ton of equity in their houses but couldn't afford any increase in monthly payments if they were to get an equity loan so in these cases one can't assume that the equity is the equivalent of cash waiting to be tapped. See some of the discussions regarding the higher rate of foreclosures today as people have over-leveraged themselves.</p>
<p>The more realistic case for a lot of people is that 'some' equity might be able to be tapped for the purpose of funding college but they need to do it carefully and consider the ramifications.</p>
<p>I agree with weenie.... something doesn't seem right about this article. </p>
<p>WHY did she take her D on a whirlwind trip of a bunch of colleges that she can't afford??? Why would you even give your child a chance to "fall in love" with something that is completely out of her price range? That's like touring Rodeo drive for prom dresses when your wallet can only shop at the local mall. </p>
<p>Most/all of the colleges she took her to don't give much, if any, merit money.</p>
<p>And... does she have any real proof that her ex is still going to cough up the $10k per year?? She mentioned that they have "kids" - not just one. If he's remarried and has "new commitments," he may not be able to still give $10k per year for each of his kids (at least $80k) </p>
<p>BTW, shouldn't parents who make such "pledges" to their kids include some kind of cost of living adjustments - it's not fair to give only $10k per year to the youngest child when his tuition - especially by the time he's a junior or senior - will be much higher.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>I do not understand the thinking that we must not tap into home equity to pay for college. Exactly what are people accumulating equity for.. <<<<</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Well.... many parents have more than one child so spending all their equity so that one child can go to some $50k per year college isn't really a fair option.</p>
<p>Also, many parents consider their home equity as their kids' future inheritance or a safety net in case one or both of the parents need to be placed in some kind of "assisted living" situation when they are older. Those assisted living places are very expensive - at least the ones that you would want to stay in.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The failure of this woman to make even the most basic inquiries is almost beyond belief.<<<<</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>My thoughts exactly. Did she not even look at these pricey colleges websites before agreeing to go???? She must be one of those parents that hates to say "no" to her kids....</p>
<p>I think it's interesting that in the "follow up" article, she didn't include any comments about how crazy she was to even take her d to so many colleges that are out of her price range - considering F/A isn't an option. Surely there were many such comments -as there have been on this thread.</p>
<p>And, she didn't include any comments from others who - low and behold - found out that their exes weren't going to "come thru" with the promised $$$ for college. Certainly she got some of those comments, too. Unless it's actually in the divorce decree, I doubt she could "make" him pay each and every year (for both/all of their kids together).</p>
<p>I did not suggest that parents spend all their home equity on one child. Obviously, that would not be a responsible decision, as would "over-leveraging" oneself.</p>
<p>Also, you might want look into assisted care insurance. My parents had the foresight to purchase this and it made a huge difference in the quality of their lives during my mother's final months and it protected their assets.</p>
<p>Please don't jump to the conclusion that considering financing options other than cold cash means a parent is going to go into financial ruin. Many here on CC seem to do this. Most of us are highly educated (or seem to be!) and are not likely to exercise such poor financial judgment.</p>
<p>"Once again, I find it interesting that those who don't have to make such decisions - those who don't have to consider $$$ when choosing among schools because they are assured of significant aid - to be the most judgmental regarding the struggles the rest of us face."</p>
<p>If you were referring to my post - we certainly weren't "assured" of significant aid. Our state university didn't think we needed any other than a student loan, while some other schools seemed to think we needed help. We had no aid with daughter #1 and a generous amount with #2. The difference was (other than being older) daughter #2 attended a school with more resources. As I said earlier, while I am grateful for the support, school is not free and we are making significant sacrifices for our daughter to attend and graduate with little or no debt. </p>
<p>And yes, I do understand the dilemma that was created. I just don't understand, given Kristof's own take on the value of such schools why she dangled them in front of her daughter. Prior to the visits the child was happy with her in-state choices. I also would feel far more sympathetic to the decisions they now face if she weren't capitalizing on it at her daughter's expense. At the least, she has used this dilemma for two articles. </p>
<p>Like I said, I am usually not this critical of other parents. We are all in this together and I would hope that we could generally be supportive of one another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the Mom wanted the fun of looking at the schools.
[/quote]
That's why we're going - and we're leaving next week. And yeah - we face many of the same issues the author did. (A little different, because with three kids in college next year we should actually should qualify for some need based aid, but have to factor in its decline over the years as D's brothers graduate... or will they go on to graduate school? Who knows?) We have lots of reasons to go - meeting friends, etc, but I want my daughter to look over schools, mull her options, confront financial issues, etc. This is the biggest clear decision she'll be confronting for a few years - I want her to get some practice at the process. So yeah - we're talking money. We're talking cost of graduate school. We're talking merit aid, need based aid, loans, etc. And everything gets compared to our great public universities, one of which will have a spot for her. But I don't see a reason to wall her off from the very thought of some other alternative, just because UC is here, affordable and available. That's the easy way out, and the probable ultimate answer, but that doesn't justify refusing to even look at other options.</p>
<p>And besides - I want the fun of looking at the schools, and visiting cities on the east coast I haven't been to for a while. (I should get something out of this, no?)</p>
<p>Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that you were indicating that someone should go into financial ruin by spending their equity. It's happens though that some people, including intelligent people, find themselves caught up in the moment and spend more of their equity and leverage more than they should and find themselves in a bind. People just need to work out a reasonable balance and not base their calculations on having their current level of income for the next 30 years. </p>
<p>I agree with you though that people should consider their equity, especially now that their situation has changed with their kids off to college. Now's the time some people can consider either downsizing or moving to a less expensive area and using some of that equity for college funds and still maintain their retirement plan for when their income decreases.</p>
<p>kluge: Enjoy! I certainly did. Because I work in higher ed. it has been like looking at another factory when we toured campus or attended info. session.
Now that my two are safely ensconsed in their schools, I have visited several others just for me, schools I was always interested in but kids refused to consider. Here in the northeast the one thing we never run out of is colleges.</p>
<p>garland, I think I do understand post 101. It was part of what I had meant in an earlier post. That is, I think sometimes mental and/or practical adjustments are made when the circle of the possible is widened. Research prior to the trip would have, yes, easily provided the figures of current affordability (of Georgetown, et al.) However, goals, values, & choices sometimes change when value is put in context & viewed directly, compared directly; value is seen in a different light. I could be misinterpreting. That is at least, though, partly what I meant.</p>
<p>Also, it may be that some parents, being used to paying for their children's education, or assuming they would do so, continue to take instinctive responsibility for that burden, & would view pricey colleges as their own due bill. OTOH, an unexpected reaction in favor of a high-priced school might cause the entire family to readjust their thinking after a persuasive visit -- realizing that previous parental responsibility might be shifted partly to the student as the price for Dreamy School. Again, I'm being lazy, yes, not to read this article cited. Partly I'm turned off by the tone of the article as described on this thread, as I find it annoying when reporters cheerfully pretend that they're the first to notice what's been obvious to others much earlier. Yet those are the very ego-abundant reporters that pose as unique authorities and/or reinventors of The Wheel.</p>
That's the p.r., I doubt its the reality. I'll bet 2-parent families where the parents are wage-earners and earn under $60K get that. And I'll bet that any family with a more complicated situation -- divorce, remarriage, self-employment, farm-owning, business-owning, etc. -- gets somewhat different treatment.</p>
<p>I don't want to take this thread too far off track, but I know enough about the need based system to know that one reason that colleges make bold offers like that is that they don't have all that many students who actually qualify.</p>