<p>I agree with both mathmom and vicariousparent. The trick is separating what is worth it (to your child) and what is merely fluff.</p>
<p>Not to show that you had office skills, but to show that you were willing to work hard. I think you can learn a lot from jobs like dishwashing. (Think Nickled and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich.) Obviously it’s not a job a college graduate is likely to want to have for long, but you can learn a lot from it. (Jobs like this may be on your resume for a while, but can be dropped as you get better jobs.)</p>
<p>First Job:
Work experience - particularly work with adults - is always a boon on a resume. As a hiring manager I look with doubt at new hires who had summer parentships to tour Europe or did more school in summer. They’re learning curve on the meaning of work is not what I want to spend my employment dollars on. The person who cooked or slogged through something nasty is not going to be shocked the mundane tasks of entry level work - even that of entry level work of a lawyer or chemist. </p>
<p>Young people tend to have an inflated idea of the sorts of jobs that they are qualified for or likely to get. Example: Northeastern journalism grad with three meaty journalism internships is working as an aid at a school for problem kids to put food on the table. And loans are coming due.</p>
<p>College admissions:
On the college admissions front, the admission director of Columbia University swore up and down that an essay on “what I learned scraping poop off the hulls of boat” was much more impressive than taking one more literature course at a top 10 college summer program.</p>
<p>"Thanks for the information which confirms my worry - some of the good schools are now not as affordable for middle class families.</p>
<p>Our DS will be a member of class 2014. I have been actually thinking about the situation. So, the building of his list may be far more difficult. The #1 condition is that we must be able to afford it."</p>
<p>So why are you having him apply to an elite school SCEA that you may not be able to afford? If “being able to afford it” is your #1 criteria, I’m perplexed as why you don’t look lower on the list, such as to the U of Alabama program where your son is basically guaranteed a full ride.</p>
<p>PG, don’t you have anything else to do, rather than making these pointless accusations? If you read OP carefully, it is stated very clearly
</p>
<p>Based on our DD’s FA package and our conversations with the FAO, going to Stanford will be the least cost option for us. </p>
<p>UA is a sound option but I think the guarantee is only for full tuition, far from a full ride. It is not that much better than the guaranteed $2700 from OSU. </p>
<p>Please get your fact straight and consider the full content before pointing fingers at me.</p>
<p>Psych, I know I’m a few pages back now, but I don’t need room and board because I’m commuting. Not always an option for everyone, but it seems like a lot of people who can take advantage of it don’t.</p>
<p>If you’re paying the “full” price, you’re not subsidizing the education of people who aren’t paying the full price. Students on financial aid receive grants which are from gifts from alumni and other contributors. And like I mentioned before, most likely everyone receives a silent scholarship. I don’t think this is a case of cost shifting at all.</p>
<p>Money is fungible. Unless gifts or grants are earmarked for finaid, they could be used for other costs.</p>
<p>DS skipped the #1 choice that offered no scholarship / financial aid and went with one of the schools that offered him a scholarship, and is probably a better choice academically than #1.</p>
<p>One of the keys for us, which I did not do well with, was to identify early in the process just how much you were willing to pay for school X. With scholarships and FA, there was no reason not to apply to any school, but once we got the results and found that it would cost over $55k, we spent too much time trying to decide if it was “that much better” than school #2. I waffled on that until DS got an invitation from school #1 to participate in a summer program that would “better prepare him for the fall and allow him early registration” for an extra $3k. I realized then that we would most likely be facing four years of “is it worth it” decisions and just didn’t want to have to deal with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, got it. Thanks!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re getting a $60K education for $50K, in what way are you subsidizing anyone else? You’re not even paying your own costs, let alone another students’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess the thinking would be: Since the college is obviously willing to subsidize $10K per full payor, then if everyone paid the full price, the college would have plenty of $$ and could lower the full-payor student contribution to way below $50K.</p>
<p>In other words, if 50% are paying $50K, and 50% are paying nothing, then if you spread those dollars across all students, the cost would be $25K per student if everyone paid. So what is happening is that the $50K payors are subsidizing each full-FA student to the tune of $25K.</p>
<p>Wow, whiners who are getting a $60K education for $50K, but think they’re entitled to a $60K education for $30K, according to some twisted definition of subsidy. If you’re not covering your own costs, you’re the subsidized, not the subsidizing.</p>
<p>News flash: donors donate money specifically earmarked for financial aid for needy students. Sorry, $50K payors. That money isn’t for you, never was for you, and never will be for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe it is correct that at least some donations from corporations and trust funds, as well as wealthy individuals, are intended to subsidize low-income students. Would these groups and individuals give money to private schools if those schools were <em>not</em> engaged in diversifying the student body? That is a good question, and I don’t know the answer, but I strongly suspect that at least some of that money would go to other places instead.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Really. I assume that you’ve audited the books of every $50K university to determine this.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Entitled to? Everything is negotiable.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>See above.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So you’ve contacted every donor to every university to ensure that all donated money is for needy students, correct? What a load.</p>
<p>So, you think a person paying less that cost is subsidizing someone else? What a load.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Non sequitur.</p>
<p>You don’t know what the costs are. You’re taking the the word of a college spokesperson on the costs. We’re in the age of accounting where the definition of is is unclear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your opinion of those who think they are entitled to a $60K education for nothing?</p>
<p>Sort of like seats on a plane. The comparison has been made here before. Everyone does not pay the same price. If you want to take that particular flight and that is the price offered to you, you take it if you can afford it. If you can get a better deal or find a way to cut the price down, you do that, but if that is truly the flight you want and it makes a big difference to you to take it at that time, you bite the bullet and pay. It doesn’t matter what others on the flight have paid if that is truly the one for you and you can afford it. On the other hand, if it isn’t that important to get that seat, you look elsewhere for other options. It’s not what others are paying for the seat that matters as much as what you have to pay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do donors specify a threshold of income for which they are willing to earmark their donations? Who decides what a “needy” student is? According to H, for example, children of $180K earners are “needy” and receive FA. </p>
<p>What if colleges grew some kahones (sp?) and acknowledged that the price tag of $50K+ is so outrageous and the economy is so bad that no one should be expected to pay that price, and is therefore “needy?” Would it be okay to use endowment money for everyone then?</p>