<p>And my response to you, ProudDad, was to answer the question you posed, in relation to the tax code. Not in relation to financial aid. There are many parts of the financial aid system that are unfair. Unfortunately, there is no way to make the system "fair" to everyone - someone will get aid and someone will not. Definitions of who can "afford" what will vary. The definition of "wealthy" is like the definition of "middle aged" or "elderly" - at least 10 years older than you are right now. Someone's ox will get gored; whether you like the system or not depends on whether it's your ox.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other than families who have an EFC of $0, or those who are very wealthy, most people probably feel that their EFC is too high. But I'd also say that most of us who have a high EFC would not prefer to switch places with those who have a low EFC.</p>
<p>Life's not fair, and it's silly to expect it to be that way regarding college. Some people are richer, prettier, smarter, more talented, brighter or whatever. That's just the way it is.</p>
<p>As far as the "family values" issue, I would have to say that I've known a variety of people whose values I admire. They did not all have a SAHM or SAHD. But they did put their children's education and emotional development as a priority. Most parents try their best, I think, and make whatever situation they end up in work as well as possible. </p>
<p>I sometimes think that the tax code discourages SAHM, and I think that primarily benefits big business. Haven't wages levelled out over time? I know that people work for a variety of reasons, but most women I know work for financial reasons. If there was less of a supply of labor, wouldn't wages be higher?</p>
<p>To Chedva, I think you are correct in writing: If you don't like the consequences, make another choice. Personally, I chose to work part-time, having been much influenced by attachment theorists like Bowlby. In the long run, this has paid off my family. My children's emotional health is very strong, and I have no regrets regarding how I raised my children. This was made particularly clear when my son was diagnosed with cancer -- I was incredibly glad to have seen him walk his first step, had those endless hours playing Legos, painting masterpieces, walking in the park, and listening to story-time at the library. Of course, I have paid a price professionally, but I made that choice clearly and deliberately. I have no animus toward "working moms." That they will fare better in the long run, at least financially is fine with me. It took great trust in my husband to take on this role --which, perhaps these days is a gamble, but we are very pleased with our kids' development both intellectually and emotionally. I have no doubt that most parents make the best choices with the information they have at the time. How any of this will affect FA, we shall see. Just some thoughts on the subject of choices.</p>
<p>Mommy wars and class struggles all in one discussion it seems there's more behind perceptions of college expense than the appalling costs.<br>
Concerning 'bootstrapping' there are people who do manage to do just that. However there is a larger contingent of those who do not. And despite following every rule or deceit behind the promised veneer of economic success as its sold here in the US... many will not succede. And because US society is becoming increasingly stratified these people are becoming more desperate to obtain status before its too late. By any number of means including spending beyond their class to buy an education. They may not know about the UN report commenting on how the US is now amongst the most economically stratified of the developed countries, or like articles in such as Slate Magazine. But they can see the trends. And from my perspective as a minion working within academia its very evident that large numbers of students are entering with the hope of not being falling into what may become a permanent poverty class.
In part this situation is one of the causes behind the escalating costs of US higher education. It was established as a system for the education of an elite and in recent years has had to absorb increasing student numbers and demands for which this system was not designed. Essentially students are a boon in tuition, but a problem as the current higher education system cannot handle the increasing numbers with any measure of cost effectiveness. And unlike the days of the GI Bill the current US government does little to effectively support academia in resolving this dilemma.<br>
And academia has gotten itself into a conceptual trap. It cannot hold to the academic idealism and elitist limitations on entry promoted by the old ivy halls. Nor can it meet the needs of the increasingly large number of students who are entering seeking education and elevation. And they haven't helped the resolution of the problem by trying to behave like profit making institutions. The conceptual change which occurred when students became customers and 'lifelong learners' is in part a manifestation of the college as corporation concept. Corporations have their place, but the attitudes within such are not suitable for education. Simply put colleges do not have the conceptual grounding to operate like Mercedes or Microsoft. And that makes them very vulnerable to the Enrons of the corporate culture. The fact that college costs have increased well beyond other cost of living indexes is evidence of this problem. In many states the equivalents of Enron and Exxon are running amuck through the ivy halls. And this analogy isn't pushing that far as several very large and powerful corporations have tied themselves to the collegiate system to their benefit and certainly not for the interests of students or families. Especially in the last half decade these corporations and their collegiate associates are viewing the collegiate system as a figurative cash cow. Its certainly not in their interests to see college costs reduced nor proper government aid to colleges or students be effectively applied to remedy the problem. And they're spending large amounts of money to make sure the situation continues. The Nelnet contingent for example has literally bought their way into both the White House and Congress where their purchased agenda is setting policy for higher education. And it's happening on a smaller scale as indicated by the recent events in New York and other states. Unfortunately the US higher education system seems to have become a venue for klepocrats. And until it's reformed it'll be profoundly unreasonable to expect the costs to drop. After all a whole system has developed which bases its unjustified profits on the need for people to borrow the money to pay for a 'bootstrap'. And that bootstrap is too often made of brittle plastic...</p>