<p>Of course there are gradations to the three examples. Mini is a 3 sigma, and as everyone knows 3s's, we can ignor.</p>
<p>just kidding.</p>
<p>We were scenario #2. DS had high test scores and was in the top 1% of his class, with the requisite ECs. But we had a different financial experience. Some privates came up with merit scholarship. But, one expensive private $44K school gave virtually nothing ($500/year!), while two state universities came up with several thousand dollars and study abroad expenses. Given that he won an outside scholarship, this year is almost free for us. In our case, the state schools were vastly less expensive than the privates.</p>
<p>We are in position two and based on what we have learned we are proceeding as if the categories will hold true. (Before knowing such categories existed, I might add. ) D will apply to several schools ranked 40-100, a couple of schools in the upper echelon, and a couple of state schools.</p>
<p>I know that we have never bought into the "apply anywhere and let financial aid have a try" group, as the numbers just don't work out for us and there is something about getting stuck on the Porsche when you have Mustang money, that has very little appeal.</p>
<p>Financial matters have ruled the roost when choices are being made since the start of the process . Now it is common for D to say when discussing a school "I can't go there unless I get a "President's" or higher , right Dad?". Truly a depressing moment for a Dad. So, she will be trolling for merit aid at schools she "loves", because we can't afford for her to love the other schools. The state schools? Notoriously stingy and we'll likely be paying full price to full price minus $4-6K. I will still insist that she take a flyer at 1 or two "top of the mark" schools. She's worked too hard and sacrificed too much not to give it a shot. </p>
<p>I wonder often how different her list would look if we had any faith whatsoever in the "fairness" of financial aid. "Fairness" is very practically defined by me for this purpose as a number we can afford without the sale of our home. I do understand that other's idea of fairness may include divestiture of our only asset (loans, whether home equity or plus, in our name are not an option) but it's my post , I can define it how I want to. I suspect that the list would be dramatically different but still contain a few of the same schools. It helps me sleep at night.;)</p>
<p>I think something may be missing here, unless I just overlooked it: savings. We were a full-freight family getting two kids through private schools. We were below the income level that has been discussed here. How did we do it? Savings over the years. Not a huge amount, but enough to help make it through. Some came from gifts from the grandparents, and some from our own saving out of income (and foregone expenditures).</p>
<p>Eligibility for financial aid isn't based on income only -- but also on assets (including the kinds, and in whose name they are) . At least some definable percentage of those who people here are assuming are above a certain income level are in fact below it but due to planning or luck they had assets that disqualified them from need-based financial aid.</p>
<p>If this factor could be taken into account, then the "full pay" component of each college would not have as high an average income as you are assuming. And I can attest to the fact that the extra assets that we used to have accumulated before we paid for the 8 years of private colleges are now gone, but then again we have no remaining debt from the process and neither do the "kids."</p>
<p>"Surprise! my D is one of those middle class income kids, (that your statistics say don't exist) and has received a nice package."</p>
<p>So's mine! First of all, please note that the statistics are Amherst's, not mine. I'll bet there are a ton (the statistics show there are a ton) of kids in the $100k-$150k category - and most of them probably think of themselves as "middle class". (I remember living with two such students when I was in college, and it left me totally scratching my head. One of the kid's parents owned a steel company! LOL!) And there is a full 16% who are Pell Grantees, some of whom like to think of themselves as middle class, despite low incomes. (Amherst, remember, is, for those who think this way, among the "good guys"!) I have very narrowly defined "middle class" solely by income, not by what people think they are, say they are, or feel they are. Pure census data.</p>
<p>"Interestingly, at the FA orientation, we were told that Amherst accepts FAFSA data, but realizes that the parental contribution amounts are outdated and unrealistic, and strives to avoid having the kids use federal FA, but rely on the college's monies more."</p>
<p>That is purely a function of whom they accept. Every student at Amherst who qualifies for a Pell (or a Stafford) receives it (or the school is run by a bunch of idiots, which we know is not true, because Amherst has actually MAXIMIZED the federal contribution through the Pell Grants - and they should be congratulated for it!) But the Pell Grants and Staffords are, for a low-income student, so small, that it barely makes a dent, relative to total costs.</p>
<p>"BTW, most of the kids on my D's floor are those middle class kids that aren't enrolled. How do they do that?????"</p>
<p>As previously noted.</p>
<p>Steel industry was a dying industry 25-30 years ago. Owning the steel mill meant that you got what was left in the bankrupcy. Mini, If you grew up in the NW, 30 years ago if you had a lumber mill-it was the ultimate death wish. </p>
<p>Anyone who didn't use Stafford and PLUS loans in the last 3-4 years was economically challenged. </p>
<p>I'd guess that you and your D's life experiences enticed Amherst to make an offer that you couldn't refuse. </p>
<p>I guess that the schools know their numbers. Give out a huge number of acceptances to the middle income knowing that only a certain statistic will accept. There is wrench in the methodolgy in that the Asian population very highly values #1 schools and will save $ to achieve full COA, even at middle class incomes. The results is a disproportional number of asian students, who also happen to be very smart. </p>
<p>I'm just hypothesizing and commenting for fun.
Back to work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is wrench in the methodolgy in that the Asian population very highly values #1 schools and will save $ to achieve full COA, even at middle class incomes. The results is a disproportional number of asian students, who also happen to be very smart.
[/quote]
While I think you're right (as a generalization and to some extent a stereotype about "Asian" parents), what you say applies to a lot more than just Asian parents and students. Some middle income people dedicate themselves to saving for education (we did) and their kids get a first class education without receiving financial aid. I also think that whatever the schools may say, you may get a slight edge at the margins in your chances of admission if you do not request financial aid.</p>
<p>What percentage of full frieght families come from under $100,000? Is there a method for pulling this out easily...I suspect it is fairly small.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some middle income people dedicate themselves to saving for education (we did) and their kids get a first class education without receiving financial aid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>DH and I have always been very dedicated to doing what was best for our children. Here, I feel like I'm being scolded for not being able to save $160K/child. We tried and did the best we could, but it wasn't good enough. I guess our kids will have to have less than a "first class education". How much of a failure do you think I feel like? I bet that not too many people raising a family making around 100K, for argument's sake, were able to save $160K+ for each of their children's undergraduate educations. And most didn't get gifts from grandparents. Many had to deal with health and financial hardship in years that didn't count for FAFSA.</p>
<p>In fact, given the turn of events, I wish we were less frugal and lived a little better all of these years. Our sacrifices meant nothing as far as college financial aid goes.</p>
<p>lkf725
We already know that most families are not even earning $50,000 much less $100,000 so I don't think a lot of families have saved up $320,000 for two kids through school. I also agree that schools don't owe me anything so if they don't want to assist I am okay with it...I just don't like it when they are telling my kids...don't worry, we are need blind and will meet need....and then employ a system that gives them a less than even playing field.</p>
<p>I was never close to saving this amount, but the amount I had was pretty much eaten up by health care a few years ago. Things happen. My kids will still grow up smart and organized....the acceptance process and the FA process is still too much of a black box if you ask me. I believe that schools keep it that way so they can get the application numbers up and I think it is unethical bordering on fraud.</p>
<p>Mr B-- I don't know if I agree. Parents here have commented on the accuracy of things like Princeton's Fin aid estimator.... their actual package deviated from the early estimate by $200 or so (I wish I could remember who the posters were). Obviously, the more standardized your situation (you're an employee, you have income, you have assets and liabilities which are easily calculated) your situation will be pretty easy to predict. For the self-employed, or for people whose income fluctuates dramatically year-to-year, or whose income is partially based on owning rental property, so that if you sell the asset you eliminate your income, those situations are less predictable. I'm sure a high percentage of applicants fall into the standard bucket... for everyone else, that's why we have telephones and email so you can request clarification on the process from the schools.</p>
<p>I fail to detect the fraud... and I have a pretty sensitive fraud meter. The schools publish the stats-- name a school which doesn't publcize its admission rates, which range from the generous to the miniscule. If you choose to apply to a school which rejects 90% of its applicants, where's the fraud???? You know your odds are terrible going in to it-- how is that unethical?</p>
<p>I was a "scholarship student" back in the dark ages, as was one of my parents (in the neolithic age) so from my perspective, the current system is a vast improvement. There was a clear divide back then-- the kids who served coffee in the dining halls and the kids who drank it. I appreciate the sacrifices my parents made, the investment the college made in me, and the gracious tax-payers of this country who subsidized my below market student loans. It doesn't change the fact that way back when, most kids paid full freight and we felt somewhat marginalized because of it. Now that 50% (give or take- some schools higher, some lower) of kids get some form of aid, I think campuses do a better job of keeping the have and have nots from glaring at each other every time a "scholarship student" has to clean a bathroom, shelve a book, or pour the coffee to keep the tuition bills paid.</p>
<p>Re somebody's response to my comment. I didn't intend to "scold" anybody. Don't take my post personally. It's obvious that most middle-income families are not going to be able to save enough to pay full freight at a private college for two kids (indeed the only way we did it is because (a) we're on the higher end of the middle income scale, and (b) we had a lot of help from the grandparents)). But some people mistakenly conclude that there is no reason to save at all, given the way so-called "need-based" finaid is awarded. My point isn't that everyone could or should be able to pay full freight to attend private school; it's that to increase the kids' options, and to reduce the future potential debt burden (from student loans, home equity loans, etc.) there is in fact some reason to save what you can. Sure, your college savings are likely to disappear (as were ours) but we were able to end up with no debt, and if middle-income parents were able to save more than many do now they would end up with less debt than they do now and the kids would probably have more options and less debt, too, from college.</p>
<p>My larger point was that you can't infer from the percentage who paid full freight what the percentage of "high income" parents is. There are indeed some middle income parents who manage to do what we did, especially because of exactly the situation we were in: grandparents chipped in. We know several families in which exactly this "generation skipping" gift of education to the grandkids came into play.</p>
<p>Re savings:
There is "middle income" and "middle income". I'm in the category that went through my early childrearing years often with barely enough money to make ends meet, sometimes spending more than we earned just to keep afloat. For what its worth, year after year, the big evil in our life was IRS -- whatever we had beyond what we earned was wiped out to meet tax obligations, and half the time we were on payment plans with the IRS. So "savings"? Where would it have come from? One year we missed a single payment on the IRS plan and within 2 weeks IRS had emptied both the kids' rather meager savings accounts. So much for college.</p>
<p>We definitely were never poverty range - we always managed to pay our housing costs, keep the kids clothed & fed - and in public school - but there wasn't money for extras, and there wasn't extra to put aside in savings accounts. </p>
<p>In order to have a viable college savings plan, I think you have to be somewhat above median income for all of those early years.</p>
<p>boy don't get me started on the IRS
I do our taxes- we file joint- and I didn't realize that the tax forms are only filed under my husbands #.
I tried filing putting my number first ( it does say your SS# and they came back and tried fining us because we didn't file!
It took a ridiculously long time to straighten that out.I would have thought they would be cross referenced.</p>
<p>Re: IRS
After 25 years of marriage and successful tax filing, they now decided that I am going by the wrong middle name...geeze! Then yesterday we got a letter that is trying to re-tax us on stock options that we paid tax on two years ago.</p>
<p>Maybe the IRS needs a separate thread.</p>
<p>I love the IRS.They are wonderful folks. They have a hard and thankless job. I love the IRS.They are wonderful folks .They have a hard and thankless job. I love the IRS.They are......;)</p>
<p>Don't despair until you have your F A packages in hand. We are middle income (around $90,000, family of 4), house our only asset, received F A packages from all schools she applied to just about equal to our FAFSA numbers [just use the FAFSA calculator to find out your expected contribution] - very little difference in total amounts, but difference in amount of loans in each package. For us our FAFSA equaled cost of the in-state public university - so DD is attending private school for the same price as our public U.</p>
<p>Regarding Rice University - I believe they offer approx. 25% of their students merit scholarships (on top of having a lower cost of attendance than most top schools.) This may be why they have more students who don't need F.A. The merit scholarships are awarded w/o regards to financial need - presumably some go to "middle-income" people like us.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They also know that, in aggregate, a 1400 SAT score is a 1200 plus $100,000 in income.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I know that Mini (whom I hope to meet in my fair city in a while) is writing a generalization here. This year, I would rather wap off 200 points from my son's SAT score and take the money :) if only I could. We sure are getting good educational value for our income here, if SAT scores are to be believed.</p>
<p>I made some pretty wild assumptions in the three examples and personally see the scenarios as idealized and not real world. </p>
<p>I would like to believe that ALL schools are at the same level in their own fashion and 1st, 2nd, tiers and state schools are really going about things in a different manner.Its all relative. I guarantee everyone that the US would never have gotten to the moon without the huge numbers of engineering students that the state schools manufactured. The MIT's and Caltechs could and would never produce enough qualified people who had the right temperment, brain power, and whatever to do the job.</p>
<p>Its all in the numbers.
Its in the heart not in the head,
If you are looking elsewhere, go for it.
No one cares,
Be happy.</p>
<p>Now, Someone please throw me a rope.</p>
<p>The only response I remember from the last time I mentioned outside aid was that it is "mostly kiwanis scholarships for $100." </p>
<p>Sigh.</p>
<p>Once more time, with feeling: there is an entire world of grants out there, not $100-$500 scholarships, available on a NON NEED basis. Applying for grants, especially government ones, is different from picking up a few hundred dollars from the local garden club - we've gotten about $15,000 in local scholarships (easiest to get because there are relatively few applicants).</p>
<p>My kids got through, or are in the process of getting through, their schools (in the top ten) with NO financial aid from the schools, thanks to such grants and other outside sources, the most recent for over $25,000. None of my kids will have loans to pay. (Note - these are NOT things like the Coca-Cola or Discovery scholarships). Myown shell-out will be no more than $7,000 a year (MAX!). (Kids also had summer jobs and 529 money).</p>
<p>Also, many grants, research scholarships etc are available AFTER you get to college - for sophomore, junior, and senior years. If you can get through the first year, there is more money available. </p>
<p>Yes, it takes longer to research this stuff - it's easier just to lie back say, "What's the use, I will only get a few hundred dollars, so I will just hope and pray and wish for the financial aid office to come through." Wishin' and a hopin' won't get you where you wanna go, as the song goes.</p>
<p>I don't know why I keep trying. All I can think of is that some people just don't have the hustle needed. It's like my some in my wife's family --- they would rather have the safety of low-paying hourly wage jobs than start businesses, yet they resent our success because we got out from under by doing just that.</p>
<p>I am really, really, really sorry if I sound mean in any way, shape, manner or form. I just feel as bad as if I had found an exit from a burning building and was shouting, "over here! over here!" and no one was listening....they were just waiting and hoping for the firemen to rescue them.</p>
<p>Sorry, bad, bad, bad week with my seriously ill mother....</p>