<p>It is a shame that the choices for our kids' undergraduate education is based on money. In many parts of the world, the government schools are the best, and the cost for the best is much, much more reasonable than our system. I don't disagree for a moment that those who are on the low end of the economic scale have it much more difficult than those higher up. The fact that a kid from that background could get a free ride to Harvard does not mitagate the many issues and hardships that such families face, and those few kids who do manage to get into a school with a full financial package are very much the exception. Just looking at the numbers of kids who qualify for Pell grants in the top schools show a sobering reality about the likelihood of low income kids having such opportunities as going to a selective college.
But one can still complain about ones' own quality of food, even when working with the starving. The fact that YOUR meal does not meet a certain standard is still valid even if you can see how lucky you are to have food at all. So it is with those who have the high EFCs. They certainly know they are lucky to have the income that generated those numbers. And they certainly are not about to lower their EFCs to get a shot at those free rides to Harvard (that can be done in short order, you know. Quit that job and give away your assets a year or so before your kid applies to college). Where the complaints lie is in the terrible cost of college for one's child to go to what are considered the top schools. </p>
<p>It is natural and right for a family to choose housing in areas that are clean, safe, and in good school districts. This is a home, and it is perfectly understandable that this should be an optimal environment for a family and the way it lives. There are many varying degrees of luxery, but many of can sit down and pretty much tell what is a true luxery, and what is really an amenity that enhances family life. I do not particularly admire families who would squeeze their members in tiny apartments in unsafe areas pinching every penny 50 times so that they have the money to send a kid to Harvard as that is the most important goal for the family. I would not want a parent to sell his kidney or cut off his arm or endanger his health working too many hours at stressful jobs for that purpose either. There is a balance that is important to be met for the welfare of all. For a family making very little money where things like food, health or shelter are threatened, there is a necessity to lower standards of living just to survive. When you have the money, it can become unconciounable to lead a dismal life so that you have the option of sending a kid to a top college. It should not be that important of an issue. </p>
<p>As you move up the income charts, the ante goes up. You are expected to provide health insurance for your kids, your yard should look respectable, your house in good repair. It is a delicate balance to be living comfortably within your means, and yet putting away the recommended amounts for emergencies,expected future expenses (maintenance of house, replacement of cars), retirement and college. When you live in a high housing cost area with adverse possibilities when you cut too much in that department, the balance becomes even more difficult. Though I am not crying any tears for those who have been making 6 figures, I will say that it is not easy. And though it is easy to say to those who have a house that has appreciated, to borrow against the equity, many with lower incomes, many needs, going to find another mandatory payment difficult if not precarious to make. Selling a home may not be a wise move when housing, in general, in that area is high and scarce, and there are still other children at home.<br>
I think a good part of the problem lies in the plethora of articles insisting that YOU, yes, YOU may not only be eligible for financial aid, but a lot of it. I see too much out there suggesting that there is money all abound, when the truth of the matter is that someone making a set amount with so much in assets is likely to have an EFC of $X and a expected IM contribution of $Y when the numbers are run through FAFSA and PROFILE calculators. The average student going to the top X desireable private schools gets $Z in merit money with no merit packages given at Y schools. Forget the, "she's so smart and talented she's going to getta scholarship". Not likely, unless the family casts a wide net and considers schools that are 3rd and 4th tier. I just talked to a Dad today who still is counting on his daughter, a wonderfully bright young lady, starting high school, getting money to go to NYU or Columbia. The fact of the matter is that living here, she is going to have a very slim chance getting into either school, and, as for money, well, I don't think so.<br>
The complaining, the expectations, the hardships makes it a real question whether the pricing of our top colleges is "right". Should cost be such an issue it is these days? With top schools costing into the $55K range, more and more families are going to be hit harder with the cost issue. Those truly wealthy will glide into these cost levels, with getting their kids in being the only focus. Those who cannot afford at all, can only hope that the financial aid packages bring the amount to a point where the kid can borrow and work for the costs. Those in the middle range will be increasingly squeezed in making decisions on whether current lifestyle often including other children can be lowered reasonably and whether it is right to all in the family to lower it to a level to afford college at these costs.</p>