<p>I agree with EMM1 on the Titanic deck chair analogy and the previous post of shifting most talented lower income students from flagship state universities to the elites.</p>
<p>Do you know where the real class divide is? It is the difference in size of endowment between elite colleges and the actual colleges where the low income students go to.</p>
<p>A better use of their endowment money is something like developing high school level online classes that are provided free to inner city schools. This would increase the pool of talented lower income students.</p>
<p>I'd like to put a student's voice into this thread, which has valuable arguments on many sides.
Here are my memories of some conversations we had with our S before he left for Amherst. We're from the underrepresented middle class. Somehow we were crazy/clever enough to believe we could manage the differential between what a well-endowed Amherst might grant (package of grant, loan and student job expectation) if we had the nerve to apply. We did find that the differential between an Amherst education with financial help vs. the state school was WELL WORTH the stretch.
Before he left, I said, "You'll meet some who are richer and some poorer. You're middle class. Don't let either difference get you down. Get to know everybody."
That he did. He took it all in as he watched classmates vacation abroad or return home to islands. ("Mom, he's going home to his ISLAND.") He expressed astonishment that half the school had families who could write a cheque for full tuition with the same quick penmanship as we write out our monthly utility bill, and perhaps about as much concern (not too little, not too much).
A very insightful comment came home to us by sophomore year. He had to go with some friends to do something related to a project that involved travelling to Boston (a 2-hour drive on a winter's day) to meet someone for a noon appointment.
He said, "I finally get the difference between the middle class and wealthy students around here. Money does not factor into the daily decision-making of the wealthy students." Going all meta-cognitive on him, I asked, "How do you know that?" He said that the others decided to travel in someone's car, but changed the plan to leave campus the night before at around 11 p.m.
"But," said my son, "that means we'll have to stay in a motel." They looked at him, uncomprehending. "So?" they asked.
Anyway, it wasn't a trauma by any means. He was used to it; just that this story kind of crystalized the difference for him in his mind between himself and his wealthier friends.
We did notice that when his younger sister attended Oberlin 2 years later, they were not quite as forthcoming with finaid as Amherst (same stats, obviously, submitted to both schools) but thankfully both schools helped us through.
The other important conversation on this was my son's enthusiasm when a whole group of Amherst students (hundreds) boarded college-contracted busses to NYC in order to give an honorary degree to Nelson Mandela. They knew he was too ill to travel to Massachusetts, so came to him. His entire message was about giving back the fruits of their education to the rest of the citizenry. Then at graduation, same message. Give it back; pay it forward. That is quite a different message than hearing, "you're entitled."
It was deeply appreciated in this house, and I'm sure in many others of many income levels. It does not escape me that there are wealthy families who raise their children with dinnertime conversation that fosters an ethic of public service (read Maria Schriver's book about her mother, Eunice Kennedy, for example).
I also realize as I write this that my son "stuffed" his thoughts about the wealth of his friends, which may explain why he doesn't recount to me what those poorer than himself thought about his life. Perhaps they too "stuffed" the thoughts or only shared them with their Moms.
Anyway, by the time he graduated, thanks to HIS campus job and every summer, he had even cut down on his loan repayment and graduated with less than $7K in debt. I think that's excellent. I'd never have imagined such a small burden on him when we began to consider his options around 8 years ago, looking at that hefty pricetag.
Never shop retail. Be brave and clever. Look at elite LAC's. Do the finaid paperwork. That's what I'm telling other middle-class and upper-mids around us. Some do think we are ridiculous not to send our kids to state colleges, as evidenced by comments to that effect. Ah well.</p>
<p>One of the most important educative aspects of a college education is the social and intellectual interaction that takes place on a campus in and outside of the classroom. It is nothing new to argue that at elite colleges and universities some students from working class family backgrounds experience profound culture-shock - precisely because they are attending institutions of higher ed. that have a social cachet of wealth, power and privilege. At Harvard, Princeton and Yale one of the major concerns these days is to foster the role of American colleges not just in terms of the private benefits that colleges grads reap but that:</p>
<p>
[quote]
universities also provide public goods that benefit society at large. None of these social benefits is more important... than advancing the ideal of equal opportunity by acting as engines of social and economic mobility. A college education is the most effective way I know of transcending the distinctions —whether of ancestry, wealth, or race—that fragment our society. By educating Princetonians of every Tiger stripe; by addressing the under-representation of students from low- and moderate-income families, we strengthen the social and economic fabric of our nation and equip it to face our increasingly competitive global marketplace with confidence...</p>
<p>It must be said, however, that colleges and universities, which are sometimes viewed as aloof and self-absorbed, need to do a better job of raising the public’s awareness of the social benefits that we provide and ensuring that these benefits are, in fact, delivered.
<p>Some students thrive with the academic and social challenge while for others the social gulf - especially when it comes to extravagant social and leisure activities - are overwhelmed by the perception that they do not belong and do not want to belong. The challenge of how to integrate college campuses is vital especially not only because they are so many academically talented kids out there who because of financial aid initiatives now aspire to attending these "bastions of privilege" - and know about them - but because these colleges are actively recruiting them with increasing vigor. Online courses are great but their role as a social leveler is quite different than attending in person and actively participating in the college experience.</p>
<p>3tuitions,
my son is currently at UChicago, where many are very well off. One of the things he mentioned to me regarded fund-raising for their scavager hunt team stuck with me. Being big and burly, he auctioned himself as a bouncer for a party. Other kids donated cakes and baked goods. Significan parental and student donations came from the well to do - but everyone contributed in some way, and all was admired and valued. As you say, pay it back, give it forward.</p>
<p>Yours is a valid argument. However, that addresses one aspect of the issue, which is qualification for an elite (& thus generous financial aid). On the other hand, what that does is to <em>increase</em> the already too-focused attention on a small # of Elites with generous financial aid policies & histories. When there are several needing classes (low- and gradations of middle-income) applying mainly to Elites with known deep pockets, & less so to similar peer schools, at some point there is a moment of diminishing returns. What I mean by that is that for a talented individual from any non-rich background to concentrate on Elite privates, is also not to maximize the prospect of admission to <em>a</em> Private which is also affordable for whatever family background pertains. If there were more $$ available the next rung down (or a sideways rung, shall we say) -- including gap money --, that student would be more likely to gain acceptance to some excellent private with very good f.a.</p>
<p>These colleges do NOT use identical methodology, but they have agreed to certain conventions in the way they handle a limited number of common issues, including home equity. </p>
<p>As to other colleges, you have two choices: (a) apply RD and see what happens, (b) make a list of all the areas of concern you have that might affect aid eligibility, and call them up and ask them how they handle it. </p>
<p>We went the (a) route, and waited until after my daughter was admitted to worry about the (b) part. </p>
<p>As a general rule of thumb, the higher you go up the ladder in terms of selectivity, the more generous the school will be in its aid policies.</p>
But I think there IS -- it's just that it gets relabeled merit money. The kid who is going to be accepted to Amherst is going to qualify for merit aid at Rhodes -- that is exactly what the merit aid game is about. It is a way for the next-rung-down colleges to entice the Amherst-quality students to choose their schools instead. </p>
<p>The bigger issue is what happens to the kids who don't have the stats to be competitive for the elite colleges -- they won't get the merit aid the next rung down, and they will be relying on need-based aid alone. My experience with the UC systems was that need-based aid was pretty good -- but I honestly don't know if my kids got favorable treatment in the aid process because of their position in the applicant pool. </p>
<p>I agree that the class issues need to be taken beyond schools like Amherst -- I actually think that there are additional issues that keep the lower half of income earners from applying to LACs outside of urban areas -- those schools are less well known, harder to get to (and transportation can be a big expense not adequately met via financial aid) , and may not be perceived as the best choice in terms of long term career prospects. The lower down the economic ladder, the more the family is going to look at the education in terms post-grad employment prospects.</p>
<p>calmom, I don't disagree with most of your points in Post #87.</p>
<p>I guess I still see, generally, several issues:</p>
<p>(1) need for widespread availability of generous/sufficient finan. aid for the talented but needy student;
(2) greater financial access to Elites for the middle income student -- the same access that other classes have;</p>
<p>and an issue that is really O/T to this thread, but I think indirectly impacts or overlaps:
--the difficulty of placing the student just shy of Elite qualification at a place both competitive/challenging for that student and affordable (whether "low" or middle class).</p>
<p>I agree that merit money is available often. Those who seek, often find. But the student from (for example) a very demanding prep school, graduating with a 3.7 UW, but given the environment could never meet the "top 10%" or similar cutoffs for merit aid at many schools (& may similarly be just shy of the test score cutoff), that student may still not land good merit aid at a private. Nor will that student's state Public necessarily recognize the possibly greater quality of that private h.s.education.</p>
<p>I see lots of students in this above position. I know there are schools out there; but i.m.o. it takes a lot more looking to find the right intellectual & financial fit for such a student seeking a coed college campus with a broad liberal arts curriculum.</p>
<p>were do you live that you don't consider an income of 40k to raise at least one child not indigent? maybe it's not living in the poorhouse, or having a totally hand to mouth existence, but where i live, that is very very hard. just because it may be twice what constitutes poverty doesn't mean that in some places it's not a low income.</p>
<p>passionflower,
The definition of indigent is: lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty. So an income that is twice that of the poverty level is not indigent. So unless you can say that families with an income of $40,000 are malnourished because they do not have enough food and cold in the winter because they don't have enough clothing, they don't meet the definition. </p>
<p>I don't mean to say that an income of $40,000 is not low, especially in a relative sense and in some neighborhoods. But it doesn't meet the definition of indigent, which was the specific word used earlier on in this thread as to Amherst's charter.</p>
<p>"I agree with Garland -- I think that you are expecting the colleges to subsidize the ability of the upper half of the financial-aid eligible group to protect their accumulated savings. Essentially you are arguing that a $50K earning family with $500K in savings ought to pay the same for college as a $50K earning family with only $50K in savings, through some sort of moral justification of rewarding them for their thriftiness. To me that turns the whole notion of "saving for college" upside down -- into a "save so you don't have to pay" program."</p>
<p>Interesting calmon, so you apparently think a spend so you don't have to pay system makes more sense. Punish thrift by requiring those who save to spend more for the same product. Why don't we extend this to say the price of a quart of milk. We could have you fill out the CSS at the checkout counter of the local Safeway and have the price you pay vary based on the amount of money you have managed to save at a given income level.</p>
<p>As I said before our elite private universities are totally out of touch with the values and culture of the vast majority of their fellow citizens. In fact the are totally out of touch with anything even vaguely resembling rational thought. The absence of the middle class from Amherst and other elite schools does not hurt the middle class; it hurts Amherst and the quality of the education at Amherst. It is the reason why these elite schools are full of fools and political whackos.</p>
<p>epiphany, We filled out the FAFSa, which everyone does, and a small supplement for Amherst, and that was it. I had to send copies of tax returns, which other schools also required. Nothing really more than any other school. I just think that this is not disseminated enough for kids to at least apply and see what the school will offer them.
D has poor, middle class, and welathy friends. No one seems to care if she takes on a job or two periodically, and a group of kids, including D, just went to Dominican Republic, to work with the poor there, and they went by obtaining donations from the school, and they did fundraising. Yes, those cupcakes at Homecoming were baked by my D. It didn't matter if the kids were rich or not, they all had to do fundraising, because the amount raised was allocated among all the students going. She has never felt as though she had to hide the fact that she couldn't afford something, at Amherst. She works a job or 2 in order to get the spending money for those extras - going to NY with a friend and seeing a play (they do the student stand-by route). And as for anything wlse, she and her friends always discuss finances, even the rich kids, who obviously don't need to worry, and they work around their friends' finances. It's been a great 2 years, and we are looking forward to Study Abroad next year, then back to Amherst and graduation. How quickly the time flies!</p>
<p>I should have been clearer, ejr. I believe you that it's not always such a big deal to go through the effort, but there does appear to be a "common wisdom" among many middle class families I know, that the effort is extraordinary. Could be part of the urban legend thing. Again, it seems to be more operative in states with good public college systems, where any significant effort may not appear "worth it" versus much less effort inState.</p>
<p>You kind of have to do it once to understand that, I think. The FAFSA looked overwhelming to me before I did it, & I assumed that the college's own f.a. form would be almost as Extreme. Neither was. But it all looked daunting at the time -- and possibly especially right after, or during, one's initiation or re-initiation into The College Admissions Journey. :)</p>
<p>I don't suppose it has occured to anyone that the reason the middle classes aren't flocking to Amherst but heading off to State U might have something to do with the fact that Amherst doesn't seem to be in sync with their middle class values. In America we believe in merit. In the People's Very Rich Republic of Amherst they believe in need. In America we like merit scholarships even if they are little more than discounts, but we don't like to take handouts, and we don't like to beg, even a little, even to from such wonderful Lady Bountifuls as inhabit the FA office of the PVRRA.</p>
<p>BTW why should these very wealthy colleges and universities NOT be paying taxes on the hundreds of billions of dollars they have stashed away in their endowments?</p>