<p>I have worked two jobs the entire time my kids have been in college. Heck, I worked two jobs the entire time I’ve had kids.</p>
<p>The extra income provided lessons, tuitions, all the things our TWO incomes could not have provided.</p>
<p>I am a college professor. I teach four courses at my tenured job,and two courses at my adjunct job every semester. That includes all the course planning and paper grading for each.</p>
<p>My colleges do wonder how I can (many are English composition) but it’s just become a way of life.</p>
<p>And since so much of the grading work could be done at home I was a full-time mom without help. It’s been very hectic, for sure, but I wanted to be able to provide my kids with certain things and there was no one else to do it.</p>
<p>Also savings. It is a reasonable assumption that families, especially in this income range have savings that will pay for at least part of college costs. </p>
<p>I do agree that the sharp cutoff of the HYP “pay no more than 10% of your income” policy at $180k or $200k is odd. It would make much more sense to have some sort of graduated cap, e.g. no more than 15 or 20% of income for AGI up to another cutoff, then 20 to 25%, with full tuition at A Level To Be Named. But I have no iron in this particular fire. I would be curious to hear from parents who have children at these schools, and who do have incomes just beyond the 10% cap. Do HYP offer some sort of discount for those on the income bubble?</p>
<p>That’s fine. I respect that. What I’m saying is that lifestyle is a choice. Colleges objectively (well, need-based colleges) put numbers in a system and spit out a number. This number takes into account past, present, and future payments. If a family thinks it’s impossible then I agree with their choice - it’s their money - but they shouldn’t blame the system. They at least have to recognize that they could have made different choices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m just asking people to put their lives in perspective. They may not feel like $200,000 is upper income, but it is. Period. It doesn’t matter if they live a middle class lifestyle, if they live extravagantly in Tulsa, or if they scrape by in San Fransisco. Those are life choices, and while I admire them, it helps to take a step back and realize that there is more to life than having a smaller house than your neighbor or working more hours than your boss.</p>
<p>I have a thread going in the financial aid section regarding this. Our AGI last year was $130K, but the online estimate of our EFC is $62K, because we have assets which generate part of our income. So we most certainly do not have an INCOME of $180K, but we would most likely be past the cut-offs at the HYPS. Our hope is to get merit aid at a suitable place, and fund the rest ourselves.</p>
<p>Unless someone is very wealthy, they cannot afford to pay for college out of current income only. </p>
<p>If someone making more than $200,000 doesn’t want to pay for loans, think of those of us making FAR less than that who are not only paying out of current income for college but will be paying for loans for years to come. If we can, those like you can too. </p>
<p>Also, as someone else mentioned, someone in the $200,000 income bracket likely has some savings also to put toward college and it need not all be out of current income. In fact, someone in that income bracket likely has investments and earnings from that as well, whereas those who make far less do not have all that either.</p>
<p>I find that hard to believe when people think $200,000 is middle class, or that their cashiers can’t possibly afford to live in basically the same areas.</p>
<p>Applicannot, you seem to be completely confused by the difference between “income” and “wealth” and the fact that “class” doesn’t mean “income” either.</p>
<p>Setting aside for the moment all of the percentage of income and relative pain arguments, those that support the current system are basically saying “Notwithstanding the fact that our kids will be receiving the same education, they should pay less and I should pay more, simply because I can”</p>
<p>In the area where I live $200,000 would afford you what most people consider a middle class lifestyle. Perhaps the expectation of middle class lifestyles has changed. Or perhaps I am out of touch because of living my whole life in the NJ/NY metropolitan</p>
<p>As I’ve been saying, upper class does not begin until $350,000.00. I did a little internet sleuthing and found:</p>
<p>The upper middle class is considered professionals who earn either $62,000 a year per person, or have a household income of $100,000. The figures generally depend on factors such as location in the US and cost of living, but these are standard numbers. The cut-off for upper middle class to the upper class is around $350,000 per household.</p>
<p>applicannot: You cannot just state that over $200,000 is upper class period. It’s just not true.</p>
<p>Another definition of upper class is that someone does not need to work. I’m pretty sure that anyone who lives off paychecks is not upper class.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how this cut-off affects the argument, but I think throwing around misinformation is not the way to go either.</p>
<p>But as someone else posted, about 5% of the population makes over $150,000. That is a very small segment. The fact is that colleges give aid to the majority of wage earners in the country. Only a small percentage do not qualify.</p>
<p>I think it sometimes comes down to lifestyle choices. People who make $200,000 certainly have different choices the someone who makes $100,000. They still may have a great deal of difficulty paying $50,000+ for college though. If you make $600,000 and you use every penny to fund your lavish lifestyle and leave nothing for college then you are foolish. Sadly some people no matter the income live up to and beyond their means.</p>
<p>That may be, but it doesn’t change the fact that if you’re one of the folks negatively impacted you still feel the pinch.</p>
<p>You have to see tiny plots of land that carry property taxes of $15,000 a year to understand how differently numbers are interpreted in different situations.</p>
<p>And I am not arguing for myself because my kids did received need-based aid. I am trying to empathize with those on the thread who do feel the pinch of policies that seem to target them and discriminate against them.</p>
<p>Yes, garland’s point is true. It’s better not to be poor, that’s for sure.</p>
<p>But it can be frustrated to work really hard and not be able to afford what the family next door can just because of the arbitrary way the system is set up.</p>
<p>Probably cannot be avoided, because there must be caps somewhere, but if you’re the one caught in the mousetrap the mousetrap is pretty odious.</p>
<p>“assets before the price was set for autos, houses, or big-screen TV’s”</p>
<p>there is price discrimination for all those things. Retailers price discriminate by offering short term sales, esp on holiday weekends when higher income folks are traveling, for example, or by creating onerous rebate procedures that aren’t worth it to those with a higher value for their time. </p>
<p>Autos and houses are of course negotiated prices. While they don’t have a statement of your income and assets, I think a good auto salesman or realtor can do a pretty decent job of sizing up a prospect. </p>
<p>Personally I think there are multiple reasons for colleges aid policies. Part is simple classic price discrmination. But of course part is trying to get individual students they want, diversity they want etc. Thats self interested too - ways to attract more future student, gain prestige, or even admit kids they think will be successful and future donors. But still not class price discrimination. Of course non Ivy Group schools can do that by extending packages tailored to individual students. Ivies can’t do that, so lowering costs for the 60-180k range (for those that did so) was one way to avoid losing the kind of mix they wanted.</p>
<p>1) This rules would exasperate the problem for families that recently achieved high incomes … assuming schools kept their financial aid support equivelent to today this policy would require aid for the wealthy (over $180k/yr at Harvard for example) taking away aid from those more needy.</p>
<p>2) To me not considering assets would make the system much more “unfair” … if I were to pick only one to consider I would consider assets and not income. I know a family that had serious family money and then the Dad built on that fortune and retired by 40 … the wife stays at home with the 3 young children and the Dad manages their portfolio and volunteers … so in a few years when the oldest goes to Harvard they get almosy full financial aid since their AGI is incredibly low while they sit on $100+M in assets. This would be abetter system?</p>
<p>I’ve been on CC for a long time and this topic comes up every year … and it is not a very satifying conversation each year. I hear the complaints and agree with many and the colleges certainly could be more public and transparent with their financial policies and information … however I do challenge all complaining to think out their alternative system.</p>
<p>I have sone this … what I believe would be most “fair” woudl be for the colleges to consider all 18 years income and asset moves since the prospective student was born and to take cost of lving differences into a account. OK, that might be a “fairer” system but imagine trying to manage this system … how many families have complete financial records for the last 19 years (what do you do about missing records because they will go missing whenever it is convenient?) (imagine the mess of considering marriage, single, remarried, custodial parents and non-custodial parents through 19 years). And where do we get the cost-of-living index and at what level of granularity should it be kept? This idea may be “fairer” but it would be some combersome and costly implementing it would not be at all pragmatic.</p>
<p>…but it can be frustrated to work really hard and not be able to afford what the family next door can just because of the arbitrary way the system is set up…</p>
<p>That may be. But as someone pointed out many of these parents paid their kids’ private HS tuition that is only a fraction less than Ivy tuition. They didn’t mind that probably because no one or not many in HS were getting FA. If someone could pay $38K for a nanny or $35K for HS, I would think they could pay $55K for college stretching or not.</p>
<p>S’s college is going to be slightly less then his boarding school, We felt very comfortable if we were to make the jump up $10,000-$15,000 more. We expected to. My sister paid a lot for HS assuming it would get her kids into good colleges with good aid. It did not work, now my niece will be borrowing a lot of money because my sister is tapped out.</p>