Consolidated: New financial aid policies Harvard and Yale

Parents Forum
221

<p>Its not about the sense of entitlement or the willingness to pay while you are able. We all want the best education for our kids, the fact that we worked hard and long, spend less and saved hard enough for our kids' high education demonstrated that we took the finantial responsibility of our kids education seriousely. And our willingness to pay when time comes.</p>

<p>The thing bothers me is the tun on this board feels like we are automatically 'scornd' if our income at > $180k. We are ''too rich' and 'entitled' to pay the 'full freight' for our kids just because we have the saving and erned a little more. Compare to ppl who have spend all money, not worked as hard or erned as much, or those game the system make shortcut, etc. can get a nice break.....seems the system is setup just to 'punish' the ppl like us, honest hard working upper middle class. </p>

<p>I totally agree with mammall (she is well versed than I ever could) "the income tax model would work best." </p>

<p>This is a disscussion board, I think we have the 'right' to voice our 'concern' not being 'scorned'?</p>

<p>btw, we(H&I) are grateful this this society give us the opportunity to make the life we have today. We are proud of ourselves to be able to pay a 'full freight' of our kid's college. Just a thought that the system and/or rules could be made more fair.</p>

222

<p>I don't really care what other people do with their money. I am able to cover my kids' college education, albeit with massive loans, and I am happy to do. If I wasn't, I would have steered them toward merit money or public U.</p>

<p>I can contemplate without envy people who drive a Lexus or a Jaguar or shop at Neiman Marcus. As long as I can find what I need in Target, I am satisfied.; we have no car, having given our old one to S1. </p>

<p>Now, if I could be taller by just a few inches, life would be much much easier, from shopping for clothes to reaching stuff on upper shelves. But who says life has to be fair? Or that it is the duty of private institutions to make it fairer?</p>

223

<p>Its really interesting. But Yale and Princeton will keep up</p>

224

<p>I also don't care what other people do with their money. But if they are looking for other people to foot their bills, then I think that is ridiculous. A car costs X, a house costs X, and a college education costs X. Pick what you want to spend your money on and that's fine. But what I'm reading here is a sense that some people want the colleges to provide financial aid to those who already HAVE the money to pay for their kids. A private education is just that -- private. There is no obligation for any private college to pay for any particular student. The fact that they do provide financial aid for those who otherwise could not attend is wonderful. Expecting them to pay for those who CAN afford to pay strikes me as entitlement.</p>

225

<p>Marite, I respect you for your sacrifices to enable a premium education for your children. That is exactly what has driven H and me all these years. We are not motivated by driving a Lexus or living in a McMansion or going on cruises. Our kids' education is our primary concern and the state of our finances are completely a result of that. I will pay if necessary. I just find the current model illogical. I'm sorry this model was in place when you sent your kids through college and had to pay such a steep price. I will do it too in a heartbeat. But I don't think it's the right model -- not yet. And I certainly am not expecting a free ride for my kids. I expect to pay a substantial amount. But I also expect that if price differentiation occurs below $180k it should also occur above $180k. Is that really such an odious concept?</p>

226

<p>It may not be good for everybody.</p>

<p>Student</a> aid changes could ripple - Boston.com</p>

227

<p>I was stunned when the son of some people I know took a $10k a year scholarship from a private university (then available to anyone who had SAT scores above 1200). They lived in a house that is now estimated at close to $3 million. It did not seem right to me. Although I do not have the same financial resources they do, I made the deliberate choice not to go after merit money for my kids because I know far too many families who really need the money to make college affordable for their own kids, who are as talented as mine are. </p>

<p>It might be nice to be paying less for college at incomes over $180k. Who after all, wants to pay more? But no one is entitled to it. And private schools should not be scolded for not doing more for people who can afford to pay. </p>

<p>I get far more exercised about the underfunding of public universities, including my own.</p>

228

<p>I have friends who are not only extremely wealthy themselves, but all three kids have large trust funds and could pay in full for any private school they wanted. But one went to a private school on a full merit scholarship and the other two went to state school with full tuition merit scholarships. I think it was a positive thing for their community that they did this; kids who might otherwise think only $49,000 colleges are acceptable can see that this family chose to earn the more affordable option.</p>

229

<p>Sorry, I don't see anything admirable in this scenario. It would have been better if they had not accepted the full tuition merit scholarships but gone to public u anyway. The public universities are grossly underfunded and the people who are most hurt are the ones who cannot afford expensive private schools. For many families, $15k a year is a huge amount. If well-off students get the $15k scholarship, it means less money available for other students whose families do not make the median income of $40k.</p>

230

<p>"I made the deliberate choice not to go after merit money because I know far too many families who really need the money"</p>

<p>Same here (for law school, not college). It just didn't seem right. I don't see how it serves the community to take public funds you don't need.</p>

231

<p>a basketball recruit at Berkeley turned down the scholarship bcos his dad said he could easily pay...</p>

232

<p>Good for those of you who delibrately not go after merit scholarships for your kid. Or was it your kid's choice. I outmost respect ppl who work hard made sacrify to be able to pay their kid's high education. You don't care about the way other ppl spend the money, good for you too. But some of my comments were first 'judged' by some poster here the way we spend money (and a complete wrong judgement) so I have to reply..... I do care 'fairness' of the society I live in. </p>

<p>I've seen ppl in my work place, heard ppl in my friends' work place, who counted working days every month to make sure not 'exceeding' certain days so their income stays below certain line to qualify for some public social benifit money. While live in a decent house (might paid off), send kids to some private(or religence) schools. Needless to say they definitely qualify for 'need based' FA when time comes. Because the system and you say they 'deserve' the 'need based' FA. I don't.....I or my friend could've quit the job, which we highly qualified and contributed, spend time with our kids, go shopping mall, takeing tea at leasure with friends, while at the sametime made our family qualify for the 'need based' FA. But we diddn't......Its easy for you to say you don't care the way other ppl spend their money. But seeing things like this every days, months, years, do make us wondering if the system is 'fair'.....we perfectly aware the life isn't fair, thats why we have human being makeup the system/rules try to make it fair.</p>

<p>And if you don't care about how other ppl spend money, then why should you care about how other ppl earn money? I think it was a positive thing for wealthy family kids to win merit scholarship too. Its a way for wealthy family kids to say we are not 'lazy' or 'stupid' even we were born with 'silver spoon'. We can work hard and compete acadamecally with the brightests. Its a way for them to show their parents if you can make it(assume their parents are selfmade men), I can too, may be through a different way. I don't mind Bill Gates's kid earned the 'merit scholarship' at all.....if he/she is as samrt as Bill Gates, he/she would deserve it. 'Merit' scholarship by definition is 'merit' based, anyone with the talent/intelectual and worked hard has the right to compete and to win....its the way to encourage humen being to strived to their best. A way to bring up the whole human being to more intelectual high level. Please don't judge ppl with your own standard or without full back ground knowlege (some of these wealthy parents might just chose to donate the spared college fund)......I will encourage my kid to compete for the 'merit' based scholarship if opportunity provide. If he won some, for one boot his confidance that he can compete with the brightest. for two by contributing to his own education he learns any hard work ultimately will yeild some rewarding.....</p>

<p>Yeah, Harvard is a private institution they don't have obligation to pay for any ones education. It was nice they even offer the aid. But they also got a lot of endorsements to the fund, the profit from their investment fund is tax free. Now some how, imo, this bring them to public domain, so you can't say Harvard is strictly 'private'. Not to mention their status in high education society, whatever they do, got be lead some trend.</p>

<p>mammall "Our kids' education is our primary concern and the state of our finances are completely a result of that. I will pay if necessary. I just find the current model illogical. I'm sorry this model was in place when you sent your kids through college and had to pay such a steep price. I will do it too in a heartbeat. But I don't think it's the right model -- not yet. And I certainly am not expecting a free ride for my kids. I expect to pay a substantial amount. But I also expect that if price differentiation occurs below $180k it should also occur above $180k. Is that really such an odious concept?"</p>

<p>Very well said. I'm stick with this, too.</p>

233

<p>I don't quite understand the issue about the "model" of college costs. Most private colleges cost around $45 K per year. Most colleges offer financial aid (so it's less than $45K) to those who earn less than $100K or so, depending on the school. It's not as if they charge more tuition and R/B for those who earn over $200k per year -- the cost is pretty well set, and they usually offer aid to lower income people. For those who earn more, why would you expect the college to pay your kids' way? Why aren't you just grateful that you can pay your own way? The advantages that accrue to a wealthy family are enormous.</p>

<p>By the way, we are a full fare family, so it's not as if we are benefiting from the FA strategy that is currently in place.</p>

234

<p>
[quote]
It's not as if they charge more tuition and R/B for those who earn over $200k per year [/qiote]
Actually, they DO charge more to the "wealthy". If one were to look at the average revenue per student, it wold be far lower than the price paid by the full pay folks. So, in a real sense, the wealthy are charged more.</p>

<p>Now, let me ask a question: How is Harvard's recent move any different than a school that parcels out "merit" aid in performing tuition yield management? Because it is open to all comers? I think not, because one still must be accepted to benefit.</p>

<p>Rather, as Marite's Boston Globe hints, Harvard's move could actually crowd out the most expensive applicants (i.e. the under 60K crowd) with kids who come from families making more. Depending on how the applicant pool forms and how their own rules are made and applied, they could actually spend less on financial aid. How's this? They can fund two kids from 150K families for every under 60K kid (give or take a few K!) If these "middle income" types in the 120-180K range apply in droves, H can accomplish a trifecta: increased selectivity, increased class stats and less financial aid.</p>

<p>Geesh, these Harvard folks are smart! :)</p>

235

<p>" . . . 'Merit' scholarship by definition is 'merit' based, anyone with the talent/intelectual and worked hard has the right to compete and to win....its the way to encourage humen being to strived to their best. "</p>

<p>I totally agree with this. In my D's private hs (she's there on academic scholarship - we would have never paid the $20K tuition) there are a number of kids with >2300 SATs, a zillion APs(and I mean at least 8 by end of junior year), and very assiduously pursued ECs. Their families are quite comfortable -- at least $250K per year, many several times that and a few with serious fortunes you see mentioned in the press. Guess what? The big competition among these kids is over the full ride with bells & whistles at our public U, the Emory Scholars awards, the Wash U scholarships, the Vanderbilt scholarships and the UNC and Duke scholarships. Those are the most hotly contested prizes among these kids. They are fiercely competitive and they think these are the toughest prizes to land -- tougher than acceptance at a top tier Ivy. Their families can pay. They just think big merit at a top 25 school is the coolest gig out there. Now my D's old friends back in our public school system lust over Ivies and Georgetown and Northwestern and big names that don't offer merit. Don't want to sound arrogant but these kids are generally not as competitive as those at the private school -- lower SATs, fewer APs and spottier scores on the exams. The big difference is they have lower incomes -- they are assuming big aid awards -- they are pursuing all Ivies and not worrying about merit. They don't need to. My D is surveying all this and feeling torn -- accepted EA at a HYPSC and waiting to hear on big merit awards. She and we honestly aren't sure what she will decide if she is fortunate enough to have both. What surprises me though is that if she chooses the Ivy it will be for the atmosphere and teaching -- not for the prestige. She thinks the greater prestige would be a full tuition scholarship at Wash U or Vanderbilt or Duke.</p>

236

<p>Mamall, the attitude of the top kids at your D's school is totally reasonable, IMHO. Perhaps these kids feel the need to rise above the "silver spoon -- gentlemen's C" stereotype of their socio-economic class. </p>

<p>I also think the anger many feel about financial aid available for those who blew their good salaries over many years of luxury spending is understandable. If one lives in a cramped, modest home because one put college savings as the top priority, it HAS to hurt when your free-spending colleagues in the huge homes travel to Europe & annual ski vacations while qualifying for FA. It's as if the rules are changed in mid-stream so frequently that one doesn't really know how to plan. I know able-bodied, young people retiring this year in order to qualify for aid. I know people frantically spending down their child's savings to qualify for aid. There IS a bias against the frugal, and I can perfectly understand the resentment.</p>

237

<p>NMD:</p>

<p>I hope that Harvard's commitment to HFAI continues together with the expanded aid to middle class families!</p>

238

<p>


</p>

<p>Exactly, but on the first few pages of this thread, there are those that assumed that the crowd out would be of the $250k crowd. Of course, all are just assumptions based on zero data since we don't know what both changes (no EA+$$) will do to the app pool.</p>

239

<p>
[quote]
If one lives in a cramped, modest home because one put college savings as the top priority, it HAS to hurt when your free-spending colleagues in the huge homes travel to Europe & annual ski vacations while qualifying for FA.

[/quote]
You know, it's possible that I'm just naive, or play by the rules too much. But we are in our third year of paying for an expensive private college, and I don't see how the scenario above really happens. </p>

<p>And if you are able to retire at a young age, as Stickershock describes, then you probably have enough assets to live on, and that affects the EFC.</p>

<p>If you have enough money to have a huge home and travel to Europe etc. then you probably have an income that is pretty high, above $180K. At $180k, you are unlikely to qualify for any need-based financial aid, unless you have more than one kid in college. Even if you have other kids in a private k-12 school, the limit on the amount they consider is around $8k, which is far less than most private k-12 schools. If you run any FA calculator, at that income level, even without much in the way of assets, your EFC will be around $45k, which is usually the full fare cost of attendance. </p>

<p>So either I don't understand how the FA process works for the wealthy, or some people who talk about how much FA they are getting are not being truthful. And I still think it is preferable to be in the position of being able to just write a check for college than to hope for good FA.</p>

240

<p>Actually, it does not hurt. I don't see living within one's means and saving for our children's education a sacrifice any more than saving for retirement or a deposit on a home is a sacrifice.</p>