<p>The middle/upper middle class has been priced out of the college market. Taking the discussion in this direction will draw out a predictable cast of posters who vehemently defend the practice of price discrimination. The preferred method of discourse it to claim those who support equal pricing for all are in essence - take your pick - greedy, haters of the poor, or any ‘ist’ of your choice. </p>
<p>The OP is a living breathing example of what happens in the current system. Yes, there is merit aid available and it needs to be searched out on a case by case basis in relationship to the kiddle’s stats. Unless one is well versed in this particular universe, it’s probably best to hire a professional.</p>
<p>I found many colleges that don’t do that want you to know, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.
Mount Holyoke is a little different:
“Student Financial Services encourages financial aid recipients to apply for outside scholarships each year. Outside scholarships can be used to reduce the student’s debt, or, if the student wishes to keep her Stafford loan, the student can use the loan to help manage the family contribution.”</p>
<p>Actually, that is not uncommon. The use of a loan towards family contribution because a merit scholarship covered the loan for need purposes is not unusual. The loan at that point is not subsidized. </p>
<p>That said, it’s hard to get enough outside merit to cover four years of self help (loans and work study). </p>
<p>applying outside merit towards “self help” (work study and loans) isn’t unusual, but many times it gets used towards “gap”.</p>
<p>A declining standard of living is the new normal in this “era of privatization” (see infant mortality, life expectancy, cost of education/housing/healthcare, etc.).</p>
<p>College education was nearly free at excellent state schools all over the country (e.g. University of California) until “liberal” and “big government” became put downs over the past 30 years. </p>
<p>Now, it’s a small sliver at the very top whose living standard is increasing. The rest of us struggle to put kids through college, find affordable medical care, etc., so that top marginal tax rates and effective corporate rates can remain at historic lows, or go even lower.</p>
<p>The rest of the developed world does it differently … as we used to do, and could do again, if we so choose. Till then, the OP’s struggle (and worse, if the trend continues) will remain the unhappy norm for average American families.</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to be this way. </p>
<p>Not everything has to be for profit. Acting collectively, instead of individually, just makes sense in a great many situations, when economy of scale is a factor. Government does do some things better than the private sector, large scale higher education among them (again, compare college affordability during the high-tax 1960’s to the low-tax 2010’s).</p>
<p>Yes - that is what I have seen - outside grants reduce your work study and loans first, at some colleges. It is only after all of those self-help dollars have been displaced (which is rare) that the college aid is reduced. </p>
<p>However, if you receive a larger state grant than you expected, that will likely result in the college aid being reduced dollar for dollar. I saw some colleges greatly underestimate the state grant that my son was likely to get, which made the college’s aid look larger.</p>
<p>The rest of the developed world does it differently … as we used to do</p>
<p>the rest of the world severely limits who can go to college. So, the “low price” has its limitations as well.</p>
<p>The cost to run a college these days has also sky-rocketed. Top notch technology and labs are needed. Security expenses have gone thru the roof. Schools now have inviting rec centers and nicer dorms. Everything has changed and it all costs a lot of money.</p>
<p>Decades ago, in this country, we had affordable higher education available to virtually all citizens … no “severe limits” at all. And it was highly affordable, unlike today.</p>
<p>College access was virtually unlimited in the 1960’s in America. It was the best in the world, by far. Almost anyone in this country could afford to go, and could gain entrance if they had the grades.</p>
<p>Now, it’s not merit, but money, that’s the deciding factor as to who goes to college in America.</p>
<p>The big difference? Then, the top tax rate on the highest levels of income was 70% (91% during those “slow growth” 1950’s).</p>
<p>It’s a simple matter of priorities. If the American people value upward redistribution of wealth to a tiny fraction of the very highest-earning families, so be it. If, instead, we value affordability and accessibility of higher education and the social mobility and rising living standards it makes possible for the vast majority of the population, we need to turn the tide and get the river flowing the other way again.</p>
<p>I have one S in college and a D going this Fall. I am taking loans to get them both through college, although I agree with the opinions that it is a risky business. Oh well.</p>
<p>I’ve only skimmed these posts, but I wonder if students-- and their parents-- think enough about those intangibles like the kinds of service and community volunteerism they bring to their application process. Seems that many students can elevate their appeal to admissions offices by showing evidence of that social responsibility you talk about in your daughter. Not necessarily along the lines of a hook-“started first food bank in six county area”-- but at least an enduring involvement, with leadership contributions, to genuine community outreach.
I know several students whose college search results FAR exceeded anyone’s predictions for both admissions and merit-FA packages at very selective LAC’s (like Haverford, Grinnell and Davidson). The common element was a notable degree of service and community involvement. Not the cynical piling on of 15-20 volunteer activities, but true commitment. Lots of these top schools actually offer hefty “service-leader” scholarships. You’ve got time to help your child really look at ways to let her light shine.</p>
<p>Decades ago, in this country, we had affordable higher education available to virtually all citizens … no “severe limits” at all. And it was highly affordable, unlike today.</p>
<hr>
<p>If we had that, it was for a short period in time. My dad couldn’t dream of affording college in the 50’s. College was expensive when I went in the 70’s. I didn’t go to the state school because it was too expensive. I went to a co-op school because I could afford that on my own. I sure don’t recall it being inexpensive even back then. The difference was, the kids I knew only went to schools they could afford. If mom & dad didn’t have money, they went to a local college or a CC or worked part time … or didn’t go at all. There was a lot of “didn’t go at all” back in my day.</p>
<p>You don’t really believe any person or business actually paid that 91% tax rate, do you? Or the 70%? Ask any accountant about loopholes in tax law and ways income was sheltered during those times… But I digress…</p>
<p>I know plenty of people that couldn’t afford college in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s… I graduated in the early 90’s with a lot of debt from a state school. I could make a big argument that the era of “big government” and spending that went on and is NOW at record levels has contributed to the problem. You seem to think more Government spending will help the problem, when I think you could make the argument that when Government spends more, many colleges charge more just because they can. And that top percentage of earners that you say should pay their “fair share”-- their entire incomes would only fund our entire Government for 8 days-- so it’s not going to help big government pay everyone’s tuition. And, no, I am not in that top income bracket, far,far from it, but more government is not the answer.</p>
<p>My D earned a full ride scholarship to UPitt which includes a stipend for study abroad or research money. She was also accepted to MIT and as it is her “dream school” she would really like to attend. As a single parent, likely with little to no help from the non custodial parent, I fear that financially MIT might be out of reach. MIT does offer need based financial aid however im not sure whether of not that is going to cut it (we find out mid march)
My D and I had a sit down to discuss her options. I do want her to attend MIT…its an awesome school. Pitt meets all her academic needs as well for the major that she wants to study…and ITS FREE.
Point is, yes I felt “like a failure”, but only for a hot second. I raised her to work hard and be a dedicated student and now she is reaping the benefits of having to make a choice such as this.
In the grand scheme of things I think we all did pretty well. I mean we are blogging about our kids going to college!! :)</p>
<p>Just wanted to point out @happymomof1 's list probably isn’t that accurate anymore. I know as far as Pitt, 1410 isn’t as competitive for that school as it once was.</p>
<p>*Decades ago, in this country, we had affordable higher education available to virtually all citizens … no “severe limits” at all. And it was highly affordable, unlike today.</p>
<hr>
<p>Kelsmom responds:
If we had that, it was for a short period in time. My dad couldn’t dream of affording college in the 50’s. College was expensive when I went in the 70’s. I didn’t go to the state school because it was too expensive. I went to a co-op school because I could afford that on my own. I sure don’t recall it being inexpensive even back then. The difference was, the kids I knew only went to schools they could afford. If mom & dad didn’t have money, they went to a local college or a CC or worked part time … or didn’t go at all. There was a lot of “didn’t go at all” back in my day.*</p>
<p>I agree wth Kelsmom. I went to college in the 70s, and the concept of “going away” to college was still something that only the more affluent could consider…and I went to a UC. Sure, tuition (fees) were low, but R&B were high enough that many families couldn’t justify the cost. So, like now, most kids commuted to college.</p>
<p>^^^ Ditto mom2. I went to a state school, within walking distance of my home. Got the job done. Chose a marketable major, put in a few years in a job I wasn’t too thrilled with, moved onto a better situation. Lived below my means and settled into a great life.</p>
<p>I looked at Earlham for my D and really, it’s facilities seemed quite basic (save for the rec center) considering the cost --altho the people were so nice. In the end, my D went to a very good state school, which was more than affordable. Bear in mind, as cptofthehouse has mentioned, that other expenses arise – dental bills, shoes,athletic gear, field trips or summer school, etc. The state school was affordable and I was able to buy my D a car, which turned out to be necessary for her internship, and pay for summer school. My D met very nice kids at the state school, so Shippensburg might not be the end of the world. I had peace of mind that the tuition, room and board were not going to create years of debt. Now that I am nearing the end of the college bills, I can tell you that owing 60 or 80K for Earlham would not be worth it. Good luck to you and your D! It will all work out, I am sure!</p>
<p>BMC grad here OP, also from the stone age. I signed back in here after a hiatus just to respond to your post. </p>
<p>I went through the same mental process, panic and depression. My D is a freshman at one of the most expensive private universities discussed on this forum. </p>
<p>What I learned:</p>
<p>1) After we attended the information session, I was going to tell her not to bother to apply based on the cost ($60,000 yr tuition/room and board). Don’t do this! She was not at the tippy top of her class and still received enough aid to make it work. </p>
<p>You can’t know ahead of time the scholarships and financial aid that your D may receive. She should apply at any school she wants with the understanding that the final cost may or may not make it possible to attend.</p>
<p>2) DON’T work 60-70 hour weeks, neglecting your health and your other children, to raise your income by a small amount. It will raise your expected contribution, and you will be worn out and stressed more than you are now. Financial aid officers don’t care that you are killing yourself more than the next person to earn a living, they just look at the numbers. </p>
<p>Once I saw here on CC that people who worked “regular” hours at normal jobs were getting the same type of financial aid as I was, or better, working virtually nonstop, I cut back to a more normal schedule. My income is what it is, and my sanity is intact. And my child is at the college of her choice.</p>
<p>Good luck to you and don’t despair. And most of all have the financial discussion but don’t limit her choices at this stage.</p>
<p>I can agree with the second job, more hours scenario. It might be a knee-jerk reaction for some, but unless it’s “under the table” it will only even out. A financial aid officer at a college office when I was thinking out loud, said, "Remember, if you earn 5000 more, your EFC will change…it’s not “extra”.</p>
<p>If you are likely to be treated as full-pay but you do not have the funds to BE full-pay, then earning the extra money is indeed ‘extra’ in the sense that it eliminates or reduces the need to borrow. At least, that’s the approach we took. I took on more hours and more work and made more–was able to pay more instead of borrow. That plus shopping for merit aid made college without loans possible for our family.</p>
<p>If you are likely to get a need-based grant, then working extra may indeed reduce what you get in need-based aid. So whether or not it’s worth it to work more is something to think about.</p>
<p>Working more was/is stressful. But for me, borrowing would also cause stress–long-term stress. This felt like more short-term stress in return for not having a bunch of loans to pay back.</p>
<p>Does someone know the approx ‘break point’ where income pretty much is going to count you out of need-based at most Uni’s? I know in the low 100k income range, we were not going to get anything. Maybe from an Ivy, but we were not looking at Ivies.</p>
<p>Our generation is, unlike our parents, for the most part, not the savers we should be. Yes, you could not have predicted the housing bubble, and like many probably bought a house that was still a bit more than you should have. You “indulged” in the extra car (how did our parents manage with just one?) I see most of my peers putting limits on where there kids can go to college due to financial constraints. My parents were from New England thrift, and despite my Dad losing his job 2 years before I left for college, they had almost paid off the mortgage and had no debt, and each of us had saved the birthday gifts, etc into college accounts. So they were, with generous financial aid, still able to send all four of us off to very expensive out of state “prestige” schools. (2 to Quaker schools). They took out no personal loans, all 4 kids were expected to have some loans. (and 4 kids in college at the same time really helped the financial aid calculations!
I regularly bless having been raised with such an example and the college experience I had. My husband and I put college as a priority for our kids starting 20 years ago. We wanted them to be able to go where they wanted. So, unlike most of our friends, we didn’t buy new cars unless we could afford to pay cash, we bought a fixer upper house and put sweat equity into it, and paid off our mortgage. And we saved. Net result: no financial aid for kids at very expensive schools! My youngest sib: bought expensive houses (now underwater mortgage) expensive divorces, expensive clothes, car loans etc. and never worked as “hard”. So, no savings etc. Fortunately the oldest in that family knows well the financial straights my sib was in (and even got a job to help with family finances.) We were all worried that she would not be able to attend college. (and my niece is just the best kid!) Guess what? FULL RIDE at Vassar!
Yes, I’m somewhat mad that we worked so hard all these years, and others who didn’t get aid. On the other hand, I’d do it all over again. And I wish it was parents of newborns reading CC! Our kids understand that our hard work and saving ethic gave them that freedom of decision. And that ethic will enable us to travel the world, feel secure in our retirement, etc. because we continue to be more “frugal” in our lifestyle than our peers.
You have lots of great advice here. I wouldn’t get the 50 hour a week job now. (becaue it will affect your income tax returns, and financial aid. But when your student gets into a college you both can afford, then you might want to increase the work, and savings. Sounds like you might need to be saving more for retirement etc!
And have a lot of frank discussions with your student. Then do let her apply where ever she wants, (you might set an application budget, but honestly the number of essays will often limit the students number of apps more effectively.) You never know what might turn up. Also then letting her know her budget from you, she can start making those difficult financial decisions now, instead of later when she has not learned budgeting and finance. Have that be part of her application process that as a team you work through.</p>