author query

Parents Forum
81

<p>No one put down the choice of a prestige college. I certainly didn't say that the person couldn't go there or it was a bad choice. I simply questioned the social pressures on kids to make that choice. </p>

<p>But I want to respond to your question:
[quote]
Why should a student be compelled to go to ANY other college but the one of his choosing?

[/quote]
I think that question in itself reflects an elitist attitude -- people who have grown up in a world of privilege seem to have some sort of sense of entitlement. I mean, my kids didn't get to have only the toys they chose, or only the particular foods they liked best. They had to attend the day care programs I chose, the public elementary school I chose, and then choose from a limited set of public high schools, based on eligibility/attendance rules set by the district where we happened to live. I don't get to drive the model of car I would like to have or live in my dream house -- I'm limited to what I can afford.</p>

<p>So why in the world should a kid have an entitlement to a $150,000 education simply because that's the college that kid likes the best, after perusing college guides as if they were some sort of Christmas catalog? Shouldn't the choices be limited by the same practical economic considerations that govern everything else in life? </p>

<p>I mean, where does this idea that every kid is not only entitled to a college education, but somehow also has the right to choose whatever college he wants no matter what the expense, just because he decides that is place where he will fit in, and no other place will do? I actually don't think most kids think that way -- but again -- Sacks raised the issue of whether there are class differences in the way families make educational decisions -- and I think that statement does show that there are.</p>

<p>At least to me, the answer to your question is obvious: Unless the child is paying his own way, the child's choice of college must be subordinated to the overall needs of the family, or at least those family members who are bearing the cost. When family income is limited, then the child obviously must choose the college his family can afford, not the one he most wants to attend.</p>

82

<p>Our family is definitely working class and lower middle income ( less than 60K).
I didn't finish high school & my husband barely did. I have worked but right now I am a community volunteer cause what I do I couldn't get paid for without lots of schooling that I have neither time nor money to spend. I don't think I am alone on the boards in either the amount of schooling I have had or our income, I don't assume cause people are interested in their childs education that they have "money". ;)
However our oldest is attending a 40K a year school ( with aid) this is I am the first to admit, that although the school meets 100 % of need, we ( both parents and student) are willing to take a healthy chunk out of our daily living expenses as well as take out loans to pay the EFC. I realize that some families just mentally aren't ready to do that, and that is unfortunate but not earthshattering. There are still cheap ways to get an education if that is what is the priority, and if it doesn't work out when you are 18, you can always do it when you are 25.
Ya its true that some of her friends at her school have trust funds, but most don't, some are on even more aid than she is, as the school as most need based schools, also have merit based awards for students that can take the place of loans or even a chunk out of their EFC.
I beleive in trying to find the place that works for everyone, for parents to acknowledge what financial commitment they are willing and able to make early on, so that they can help their child find additional resources if necessary.I don't think everyone "has" to go to an Ivy priced school, but I do beleive in finding the best fit even if it costs a bit more, but it is important to have discussions about it, before the application process starts , so that other resources can be found.
Some states do have great state schools, I won't argue with that, my daughter only applied to 5 schools and 4 of them were public, I can't say that she would have been happy with any of the schools initially, as once she visited Reed and was accepted, she wasn't too hip to visit her other choices, but I htink that if the package just wouldn't have worked for us, she would have done well at any of the other schools.</p>

83

<p>Calmom, the only thing I will say to you is that you could not POSSIBLY have read the article by Sacks that I did, or you would not say that <strong>I</strong> was the angry one. I responded as several other people I know have who have read THIS PARTICULAR ARTICLE - with horror, shock, amazement, etc. And, BTW, Sacks is just plain wrong on THIS thing he said about gifted education: that it is designed to keep out minorities. I said that was totally false for our region, by the way the entry requirements are designed, and has been for decades.</p>

<p>I have been very poor (on food stamps), the child of an immigrant family, middle class, and now upper middle. I found that article bitter and insulting to people of EVERY class, insulting and offending to immigrants AND those who are not. I also found it reductionist - everone was painted with the same broad brush. In fact, I sent it to a philosophy professor who is going to Xerox it and pass it out as an example of many, many things NOT to do when arguing.</p>

<p>And BTW, I have NEVER argued that Ivy grads are "better or smarter." In fact I have specifically pointed out that my husband and I have a business which has had to fire "loser" Ivy employees, and I have pointed out how many peole in our town making the most money come from non-elite schools.</p>

84

<br>


<br>

<p>I'm surprised that this issue is raised as though it were a new discovery. A larger proportion of the population now goes to college than ever before. If we look back a few decades ago, the vast majority of middle class Americans did not aspire to HYPMS; they happily went to state universities, and often, they did so on the GI Bill if they were males. HYP were even more full of legacies than they are now, and whole segments of the population were not admitted or admitted according to some quotas (eg. Jews). If anything, the current anxiety over admission to HYPMS has to do with greater access to those schools, not less, because they have become more meritocratic. People who complain that these schools are full of "undeserving" students, academically mediocre athletes and legacies, poorly prepared minorities, forget that in fact, their students have become better not worse than they were because the doors to these schools have opened wider. Students who would not have had a shot at being admitted, no matter how stellar their academic record, now want to attend or have parents who pressure them into applying (see thread on ignorance). But they cannot admit all the strong students who apply to them, hence the unprecedented anxiety, and the countless discussions on elite college admissions. </p>

<p>As for the question "why should a student not attend the college of his or her choice?"
I often see it raised not as an expression of entitlement based on available finances, but of frustrated middle class aspirations. "Our child has stellar qualifications, but we cannot afford to send him or her to HYP because we don't have enough money but we don't qualify for need-based aid. Isn't life unfair? Why should my child not attend the college of his or her own choice?" </p>

<p>When discussing financial aid at top schools, it's worth remembering that state schools are not cost-free. And if you live in a state with a mediocre public university or one that does not offer your choice of major, going to a public university in another state can be quite expensive. I costed the expense of attending Berkeley for a non-CA resident. It is almost as much as attending HYP. Chances of a need-based aid are lower than HYP for non-residents.</p>

85

<p>Calmom, that statement was not said in isolation but in reference to your statement as quoted. You implied that given the choice between a full-ride 2nd tier school and a "designer label", the choice of the designer label would be because "the idea had been sold." You say that you do not "put down the choice" yet the very use of the term "designer label" connotes that it is a school chosen for its name. And thus my remark, why should a student not be free to make either of these choices, any choice from among his options (which would be acceptances, not any from amongst the pages of a catalog)? of course the student acts in accordance with his family, unless he is financially independent, and of course there are practical economic considerations (we're talking about middle class, here), but many students/families choose top colleges and are able to do so, as several here have attested, even when there are better financial options. But the considerations are not always only financial. Putting my statement back in context and as a response to your statement, would you still consider me to be elitist? Here I sit, defending the choice and the feasibility of middle-class students attending top schools, and am viewed as elitist?</p>

86

<p>
[quote]
Students who would not have had a shot at being admitted, no matter how stellar their academic record, now want to attend or have parents who pressure them into applying (see thread on ignorance). But they cannot admit all the strong students who apply to them, hence the unprecedented anxiety, and the countless discussions on elite college admissions.

[/quote]

While I didn't attend a 4 yr school both my parents ( who also were from working class background, my maternal grandfather had an 8th gd education) attended the University of washington ( whose president I just read today makes the highest salary of public school presidents) Back in the dark ages before I was born ( the mid 50's) all you needed for admittance was a 2.3 -2.5 GPA. Now it is a 3.8 . I don't think that it all can be attributed to grade inflation. Required high school classes were also much lower, from what my mother remembers, you needed a diploma and two years of a language and that was pretty much it.</p>

87

<p>If gifted education is designed to keep out minorities, then why does the program I teach in offer free tuition to minorities in its outreach program?--even when some of those to whom it offers such free tuition do not complete the courses (I speak from experience as their teacher) and are allowed to continue when it is convenient? I can't abide any form of gifted education being attacked when there is so little of it available, even the kind that I participate in--the expensive kind (and believe me--those who do the actual providing don't receive what you're paying for it--that's one reason I can also speak as one of the "working class" so blithely referred to above! If my son hadn't had a separate source of income, HE wouldn't have been able to participate in the program in which I teach! Does that mean I would think it shouldn't exist for those who could be in it? NO).</p>

88

<p>Calmom writes: "Unless the child is paying his own way, the child's choice of college must be subordinated to the overall needs of the family, or at least those family members who are bearing the cost. When family income is limited, then the child obviously must choose the college his family can afford, not the one he most wants to attend."</p>

<p>This is a broad generalization. For some, this philosophy is appropriate. But please realize that different families have different values. In my family, we allowed the child to choose the college she most wanted to attend, even when finanical aid offers were higher at other colleges she was admitted to. Why? Because we highly value education and because we feel she did her part to work hard to reach her goals and we felt that she should attend a college that best suited her learning needs, preferences and criteria. Is there more than one place that could do that? Surely. But we value our children going to colleges that they have a strong desire to attend and to get the best education that suits them. Will we be paying loans for years to come? Yes, but that is our choice and may not work for everyone else. Both my husband and I were fortunate to be allowed to go where we wanted to for college and education is very valued in our cultural backgrounds. We are giving our kids that same opportunity. That does not mean we are "right" or someone else's choices are not well founded based on THEIR values. But your statement that kid has to go where the family can afford is a generalization. </p>

<p>As well, you seem to make a generalization that those who attend "elite" colleges do so out of motivation to attend a "name brand". While I imagine there certainly are those who choose such schools with that intent or desire, it is NOT true of many others who attend. I know for my own child, she was NOT caught up on college names or prestige. She DID want a challenging learning environment with other motivated students like herself, similarly to how she prefers certain tracked high school classes where she feels she fits intellectually. However, she was looking for "fit" with her various college criteria (the above criteria was just one aspect). So, after acceptances came in, for instance, she was considering Smith over Penn (if it were just between these two choices, she would have chosen Smith). So, it was not all about "name". She also was considering Tufts possibly over Brown. While she did end up at Brown, it had more to do with various "fit" criteria she found after much exploration and two visits. The name factor for her was definitely not where it was at. Ivy was NEVER her goal. She did want to go to a very good college, that I will admit, but she worked hard to get into that kind of learning environment she so desired. </p>

<p>I like what the student on this thread posted who goes to Yale who came from a rural background....he said something about education being the "great equalizer" in an earlier post. I think that is true. My daughter is not poor but is middle class (frankly, I am not sure exactly what "class" but she is not rich) and went to a rural public high school. While my kids have gone to some summer camps/programs where there were peers who were from much more affluent backgrounds, they always made great friends because they shared common interests. Now, at Brown, my D has made perhaps more friends in a couple months than she had during high school. Many come from quite a different background than she has. In fact, even though statistically her college takes a balance of kids from public and private schools, she remarked that almost every friend or kid she has met went to private schools. She said one day she was in a large group of friends and this came up and they realized only two of them had gone to public school. This has NOT been an issue for my D as I believe she has LOTS in common with the kids there who either have similar interests, are they type of student she is, or stuff like that. Their income levels just do not come into play much when enjoying time together. </p>

<p>Earlier in this thread, CTYMom spoke about gifted education and I cannot agree more. I live in a state where there are no gifted policies as well as no gifted education programs. Kids at that end of the spectrum often have difficulty getting their learning needs met here and in fact, there is such a push to have everything be "equal" that it often works against these kinds of kids. And I also agree with her that gifted students does not necessarily equate with those at the highest income levels. We have plenty of low and moderate income kids here who are our best and brightest. I would agree that often those who succeed in the classroom might come from families who value education, get involved and support kids' endeavors, and who may be educated themselves though that latter point is not necessarily always true. It does take having a family value education. That same family might allow their kids to attend any college and do so through various financial aid means. For some, the education overrides the price ticket, even if it means financial hardship. I am not saying that is for everyone but for some of us, it is a value.</p>

<p>Susan</p>

89

<p>I must have missed where it was said that gifted ed was designed to keep out minorities, although there does seem to be a disproportionate lack of minorities ( other than asian) in gifted programs as there seems to be a disproportionate number of minorities in special education.
However, I do remember being frustrated that there was lack of programs for middle class kids when I was in high school. Many programs were specifically for lower income kids and even if my parents would have paid for something ( which they wouldnt) opportunities to expand on interests and abilities were very hard to find.
Once my father passed away when I was in high school, all of a sudden I had more choices and people interested in my success. kinda sad really cause it was a little late.
It still can be difficult today, although not nearly as. Lots of programs summers for kids, especially if you don't mind paying a LOT of money. But for specific interests like photography for my 14 yr old, there are several programs that are tuition free for students that are really low income, but I couldn't even find a class that was being held for teens that charged tuition, let alone one we could afford.
I think it is great that there are so many opportunities for minorities especially low income, but I do prefer programs that are offered on sliding scale ( like college) over programs that are either $400 a week or free.
Since I am on my soapbox ya know what else gets under my skin?
Public schools that are only for kids who are doing well already and no support for kids who might have learning challenges. I just have been looking at a school in our district that is very small and has a very structured curriculum where everyone has to take minimum level of courses offered including a language all four years. But not only do they not have a federal funded lunch program, they dont have space in schedule for kids to take support classes even in 9th grade, where many kids may need help adjusting to high school.( it is also the only high school in this neighborhood)
One reason why we pushed to have my daughter attend her high school is because they do offer support for kids who aren't "performing to potential".;)
While at another school she would have had to place into what ever math class she tested into, even though her test scores don't reflect her intelligence, at her school she has two math classes, one class that will bring her up to grade level by end of semester and one class to support students in the accelerated math class.
I know that since this school encourages all students to take advanced classes that parents of both students who are traditionally gifted and parents of students who really struggle complain about the classes being held back or going too fast.
I can see their point but for my daughter it is working very well because she is able to take the honors curriculum without having straight a's as she might in another school, but she is also given the skills she needs to succeed in those classes that her parents can't help her with.</p>

90

<p>I volunteered to participate in Mr Sack's research and, quite frankly, I did not know about his "world view" and didn't care. He emailed me last nite to schedule a phone interview and asked if I had read the comments here, which I hadn't. I did tell him that this MB, like most, is populated with highly opinionated people which is fine with me. I like a lively debate even if it takes on a bit of an edge.</p>

<p>I believe that everyone here can agree that we do not exist in a pure meritocracy. The only question to be answered is to what degree does class advantage or disadvantage impact the lives of individuals? And is this an injustice that needs to be confronted with some degree of intentionality?</p>

<p>I attended a forum last night where Noam Chomsky was the keynote speaker. I came away concluding that it is necessary to dig deep beneath the surface to find valid truth to the issues confroting the world today and that Americans in particular, are more than willing to base their opinions on superficial information that oftentimes descends to the level of anecdote. We see that here all the time.</p>

<p>Lets take the SAT I test for example. In 2004, 1.52 million students took the test including 1.00 million seniors. The highest %age of test takers were those students from families earning $100k+. In addition, the avg. SAT I score rises with family income, ranging from 872 in families with incomes <$10k to 1115 in families with incomes >$100k. Parend education the same: ranging from an average score of 860 where parents had no HS diploma to 1122 for students with parents holding graduate degrees. FinAid ditto: avg SAT I of 1006 for students who would be applying for finaid and 1072 for those who would not.</p>

<p>So what conclusion can we draw from these "facts" regarding the meritocracy issue as it relates to our "elite" colleges and universities? I suggest not much at all. If you look at any of the average SAT I scores cited above they all remain far lower than even the 25%ile scores of colleges like Harvard, Amherst, Yale, et al. Clearly the cohort of competitive students are outliers from any sliced and diced average. Clearly there are indicative tendencies but to arrive at a valid conclusion one needs to burrow further into the numbers, something I cannot do so I will leave you dangling!!!</p>

<p>The only thing I can conclusively say is that in one sense it makes no difference at all. In terms of career success, and using income as the metric(I know, I know-there are many other parameters that can be chosen) the academic study by Krueger and Dale concluded that for any individual student it did not matter what college he or she attended. Career success correlated to the most selective college that student had been accepted to. Surprise! It ultimately depends on the qualities that the student brings to the table!</p>

<p>With that I will say adieu.</p>

91

<p>Originaloog...I firmly believe that career success is not tied to what college one attends. I think it is the person who achieves success, not the name of the school on the resume. While sometimes the name of a school might open some doors or there are opportunities that arise via their college, I think an achiever is an achiever and the person is the one who ultimately achieves success and this can be done from wherever one comes from or where ever one attended college. </p>

<p>I must admit that I am baffled at times by particularly some student posts on here that continually ask if they attend X college over Y college, will that mean a better job or a better grad school, etc. etc. That kind of thinking is foreign to me. I really think it is the person who determines how far they will go with jobs and such. The reason in my view, to attend a more selective college is not due to what jobs it will open one to but more about wanting to be in a particular learning environment or preference for a certain degree of challenge akin to why someone might choose an Honors class over a regular track class in terms of fit. </p>

<p>I definitely think career success is to be had for kids who attend a WIDE range of colleges. I do not see the rank of a college as determining how successful one will be later in life. I think students should attend colleges where the fit of the school (including the level of academic challenge as ONE criteria) seems appropriate. Frankly, for some careers, the so called "name brand" colleges are not even the best choice.....say for nursing or for musical theater.</p>

92

<p>I have been following this thread and venture into the fray with great reluctance. But I could not help but notice that in another thread, when a poster mentioned, in passing, her D's GPA and rank in the top 10% of her class, one of the first responses alerted the OP to the fact that the D might be able to get into schools like Harvard and Princeton. Others explained how the EFC works (the crux of the OP's question) but also included references to merit money at "top" school. After a few posts, another responder finally asked what the D was interested in and why she chose a state univ. But the assumption underlying the first replies seemed to be if a student has the credentials, of course they and their parents would aim for the most selective schools. Whether this is a class thing, a sincere interest in everyone getting the best education or best merit money they can, the preferences of people who post here, or what, I don't know. It just seemed ironic to me to read these two threads one after the other. No criticism intended - but clearly we all have our biases and frames of reference and they inevitably color our replies.</p>

93

<p>Wish, it seems as if parents generally respond to the questions as asked, giving information on individual schools if asked to do so, or adding others from their own points of view, and yes I agree that individual frames of reference mold the reply. Here, if nothing else, I hoped to get across that students/parents have choices, and that top colleges are indeed among the options available to top students. As many others have pointed out as well, decisions are made not only along economic lines, but according to fit and in all sorts of areas, academic and extracurricular and otherwise. It is not a judgement as to which school is better. That is an individual choice.
And as to Originaloog's question as to whether (socio-economic) injustice needs to be confronted with some degree of intentionality, I think that when top colleges improve aid packages as they have done in order to make it possible for any student to attend regardless of income, and as they admit students with consideration to "the whole person" not just test scores, they are intentionally confronting problems and making strides to rectify them. I would hope that people will see not just the injustices out there, but the opportunities as well.</p>

94

<p>April
I agree with you that people responded to such a high GPA and yet aspiring to state U, and wondered why. Where I live, most kids aim for state university. For a field like PT, state u's often the best place.
When my S was in middle school, he asked if he would be able to go to a 'dream' school, which for him was MIT. I assured him he could, I'd find a way financially. This dream kept him motivated for many years, seeking out opportunities within HS, finding them outside, self-learning. In jr y, he was fortunate to be accepted at a dream school.
After he applied, I discovered CC. I learned that other schools would have been good matches, and merit aid was available at many schools a notch below his dream schools. When his friend asked me about history majors, I knew how to look up the info. I showed another friend a thread comparing LACs to universitites. There are so many knowledgeable people on board, and all but a few have the best of intentions.</p>

95

<p>It's interesting how "elite" or "name brand" schools are equated with expensive schools affordable only by the rich, or upper-middle income with the ability to pay out of pocket or by taking out loans or the very poor who get full rides. So I looked up three schools not often mentioned together:</p>

<p>Harvard (#2, in 2003 YSN&WR). Tuition, room and board, $39,880.
Pepperdine (47 in 2003 USN&WR): ibid. $36,360.
Drexel (third tier) $38,000 (approximate)</p>

<p>Over four years, the difference is about $14k between Harvard and Pepperdine and less than $8k between Harvard and Drexel.
Great schools at great prices:
Harvard #3.
Most debt:<br>
Pepperdine #1.
No info on Drexel.</p>

96

<p>Wish, I have finally had a few minutes to peruse the other threads and found the one to which you referred. Yes, it is interesting not only how different people reply, but how those replies may be interpreted differently! You know how I said that to me it seems that parents generally (meaning usually but not always) respond to the question as asked? Well note that in this case, the first reply was, "I don't know the answer to your question..." After that, more information was given, from the second poster's point of view, which I think may have been along these lines: you are concerned about finances/your child appears to have excellent qualifications/here are a couple of suggestions for additional options of schools which are known to have very generous aid for students and families such as yours.
There was a lot of extraneous info in the original post relative to the actual question.
(But since the OP thought it important enough to include, might it be commented upon?) Had the desired major been one of the points of info originally posted, the first response may have been different, I think we can say almost assuredly so! But I don't see the reply as an assumption that if the student has the credentials, the most selective schools would be the aim. I see it as presenting a possible option, and thoughtfully so, to someone who may be unaware of the phenomenal aid available for lower income students. As Marite shows above, a lot of the assumptions about top schools relative to affordibility are just--in need of further information! If nothing else around here, there are lots of differing points of view and many parents have vast stores of knowledge that they very generously share. Even if some of it doesn't pertain to the present OP, someone else may find it very helpful!<br>
This isn't a disagreement, just an alternative point of view. It is funny how one little bit of info can throw a whole conversation in an entirely different direction, though!</p>

<p>And by the way, Wish, as we agree that a poster's frame of reference molds his responses, and for Calmom if she's out there, here is my frame of reference, which may color my replies: I did not grown up in a world of privilege. In fact, it would be lower class, or let's say "lower income". I was independent at age eighteen and put myself through university. I am very much aware that there are, in in our society, educational inequities often starting very early in life, but at the same time I am very much offended by the idea of equating obstacles with impossibilities. A good education is so important, and by good I don't mean any one type of school or experience--vocational, technical, liberal arts, etc (uh, choice issue again, take your pick). But thirty years ago, doors could be opened with effort, and they open more easily today.</p>

97

<p>Hi Cricket - I think I like your interpretation better than mine! Indeed, some of the most informative and lively posts are ones that ventured away from the thread's original topic. </p>

<p>My own frame of reference is all over the map. Grew up middle class. Both H and I attended solid/top ranked public universities for both undergrad and grad school. We then had a stint at an Ivy where he taught and I was a "faculty wife" before I was hired into a staff position. (Ironically, that same Ivy had rejected him twice - for both undergrad and grad school! Now though, they were delighted to hire him as a professor. Go figure....) Now we are back at a state u. Although S could attend that state u at a reduced rate, we would prefer to see him at a private institution. He concurs, but he doesn't think ANY school is worth $40,000 a year, so he hopes to get some merit money. Not unlike those folks who will only take a trip if they can get a discounted airline fare and stay in a hotel room booked at a reduced rate. I think merit money is great but recognize that others (alumni donors, kids paying full freight, etc.) are in reality subsidizing him. I can only hope that, like my D who got merit money at an LAC, that he will contribute to the intellectual and social life of the campus in a way that makes his presense there worth it, and that he'll eventually be able to donate $$$, to help support others who will follow him. Or give back in some other significant way.</p>

98

<p>soosievt wrote:
[quote]
But your statement that kid has to go where the family can afford is a generalization.

[/quote]
No, its an illustration of that "class" difference. I'm still in the "class" where the word "afford" means: if I get sick or make a mistake with my money, I'm out on the street. "Afford" is what I can pay for without putting undue risk on my own future. I'm also a single parent - there is no husband or second income to bail me out. And when kid #1 went to college, I had to worry about providing for kid #2. "Afford" doesn't mean I make the kid go to the cheapest alternative -- heck, he could have gone to ASU for free -- it meant that I had to draw the line. When his #1 choice - a college he clearly wanted more than all of the others on his list -- accepted him but did not provide financial aid, with a $30K first year cost - then there was no issue. He couldn't go. End of story. He would have gone to UC, but for the fact that choice #2 admitted him with a financial aid offer that was far more generous than what any other private college offered. I DID take out a loan for his first year of college - I took out a $10K loan because I decided based on my income that I could afford that. I did the same kind of math that lenders do when they approve loans - I looked at what the loan payments would be in relation to my other income. I couldn't have afforded a $30K loan because at the time with all my other expenses, I couldn't shoulder a $300/monthly loan payment. </p>

<p>If you are suggesting that some parents can sacrifice to allow their child to choose a school that is more than the family can "afford"... then you are using the word "afford" in a very different fashion. For people who are financially well off - then "afford" might mean giving up a vacation or foregoing a new car. When I use "afford" I'm thinking about paying the mortgage, the health insurance premium, and the cost of gas to get to work.</p>

<p>I don't think most kids have any problem understanding this. At least in my house, my kids grew up with an acute awareness of money problems we faced. I don't think my son would have wanted to go to his first choice college if it meant that I couldn't make ends meet. As it happened, my son started school in Sept. 2001, and the aftermath of 9/11 cut into my income for that year and the next - I couldn't have anticipated that, but I'm glad I didn't make the mistake of overextending myself financially. </p>

<p>Again - it's not a matter of parental selfishness or sacrifice - no kid in their right mind wants to see their parents bankrupted or forced to sell the family home in order to allow him to attend college.</p>

99

<p>(Wish, am keeping my fingers crossed for the merit aid for him!)</p>

<p>Calmom, even though Soozie's post is quoted above, I hope it's ok if I interject something here. Soozie's post referred to the previous part of the discussion that had as a theme, "the doors of the Ivies open to the middle class," so students included in that group who might be accepted at top colleges would likely have various options for aid and attendance (honors programs, merit aid, generous need-based aid at top schools). That your son had no need-based aid at the school he most wanted to attend seems to indicate that either it was a few years ago (if one of the very top schools known to have generous need-based aid now) or was a school with less money to give out (as in a need-aware school, possibly?). So you would have had to sell the house to send him to that one! Fortunately he still had among his options UC, ASU, and one of the private colleges with a much more generous offer than others. Now though, relative to affordability, you have the concerns of affording college for your daughter who "has her sights set rather high for college." But it sounds as though you are doing just the right things by "trying to assemble a good list of less-selective colleges and focus on building excitement for the safeties." I'm sure lots of the experts around here could add suggestions of other possibilities, if they haven't already! Along the lines of class, your post prompts the questions: what are the options for middle-income kids at less competitive colleges? What to do about safeties considering the rising cost of state universities and sometimes less aid available there?</p>

100

<p>Cricket, thank you for your post - I know you are trying to help -- but you don't seem to get the point of my posts. I am not complaining that I want my kids to go to "top" schools., or that we personally are being financially shut out of choices. I honestly don't give a rat's ass where my daughter ends up going to school.</p>

<p>But I'm not asking for advice. The only POINT I'm trying to make is that not everyone is on or wants to be on this competitive "best" or "perfect fit" college track. </p>

<p>Peter Sacks started this thread saying
[quote]
I would like to interview college-bound students and parents about their college preparation and planning. What are students' and parents' expectations for their children beyond high school? What social and economic factors have informed these expectations?

[/quote]
I'm posting here to discuss some of those questions. What I'm saying is that I think that the social and economic factors that reflect my own life lead to some very different goals and preferences than what seems to be typically expressed on this board. The various responses posted here only reinforce that view in my mind -- it's like being a vegetarian around people who keep offering meat. No matter how many times I say that I don't want X -- people keep popping up trying to help me get X or extol the virtues of X. </p>

<p>But the main thing is -- this isn't about ME. I'm not asking for help - I'm relating my experiences to illustrate points. I suppose I could just email Sacks and give him my point of view that way - but I don't think we fit the profile that he is looking for. We may share his opinions -- but if so, then we've already jumped the track and would have to be interviewed for a different book entirely.</p>