<p>Colleges are not having trouble finding full pay families who make over $180,000/year. A huge percentage of the student body is in this category. The colleges wish to make college more affordable for those making less than that so that they can have students from this income bracket as well on campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh honestly, if you are making that kind of income, (> $180,00 annually), I hope you have managed to save something.</p>
<p>A lot of those who are complaining that they do not get FA, sent their children to private schools…either K-12 or 9-12. So, already, the money they spent toward that can go to college tuition. Even for someone like us who makes a lot less than many on this thread apparently do who are complaining about no aid, we already knew that out of current income, we could pay SOMETHING because we had been paying for other things for the kids growing up that we no longer would have such as all their EC activities/lessons and summer programs. That money could now go toward college. So, those who make a lot more than us, also have a savings in what they used to spend on their kids prior to college that now can go toward college. It doesn’t cover it but it is money they were spending on the kids all along.</p>
<p>It did not work, now my niece will be borrowing a lot of money because my sister is tapped out.</p>
<p>That is unfortunate- I find that there are still quite a few colleges that are affordable- especially with merit aid- albeit they may not be as " prestigous" in certain circles as schools that only offer need based aid.
However- there are also schools that only offer need based through the school- but private donors have also earmarked monies for merit aid ( although sometimes with a need component), for the schools students.</p>
<p>More digging is required to find what schools these are- I do know that Reed and Colgate both had private designated scholarships</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>income = what you make in a year
wealth = what you are worth monetarily as a person OR the quality of being rich, depending on the context
class = a group of people with similar economic, social, and educational status</p>
<p>Wealth is often, but not always, dependent on income. Class and income are directly correlated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it is an upper income lifestyle simply because you choose, or perhaps you feel like you must, live in a very expensive place. Living in an expensive place and therefore being able to afford less doesn’t make you middle income; it makes you upper income simply by virtue of living there. Someone who lives a multimillion dollar house outside LA also deals with a very high cost of living and thus lessened buying power (i.e., feeling “middle class”) but that does not make them middle class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I guess we fundamentally differ because you use an article to define income cutoffs for classes and I am using statistical information on household income. That is where we will always differ.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is your definition of upper class? I use income to define the classes; i.e., I go by standard of living. So, if someone makes more and thus has more than 90% of the population, I don’t consider them middle class. They may feel middle class because they can’t buy everything they want, but the fact is that they can live at a very high standard of living simply by virtue of making much more than almost everyone else. So, classes are almost directly correlated to income.</p>
<p>I understand the desire to classify oneself as less well off. It is easy for me to say that I am low-income when in reality I lead a life with a higher standard of living than most of the world. But you can’t ever lose track of that perspective. It is easy to feel middle class in NYC, when in reality that is not the case.</p>
<p>
Applicannot, let’s revisit this after you graduate and join the working world. I hope to know how you’re doing when you have a family of your own. Then you can talk to me about “class” and what it means in all of its manifestations.</p>
<p>
What would you consider police, firemen, garbagemen, postal workers? Seriously.</p>
<p>applicannot, I hear what you are saying, but making $200,000 is more likely in this area then many others and starter homes start around $500,000 around here. My H is self employed in a business that could be moved and he would still make a high income so your theory absolutely applies to us, we live here for lifestyle choices, near family, the beach, NYC etc…but I firmly believe not everyone has that choice. We are able to pay college costs out of current income but I know we are very fortunate.</p>
<p>Applicannot, you contradict yourself. Income and standard of living are most certainly not the same. I live in NJ and grew up in Minnesota. We make in the 150K-200K range here in NJ and our standard of living is the same as the one my parents have in Minnesota on half the income. We pay more in taxes, gas, electricity, groceries, you name it. </p>
<p>We will not get financial aid nor do we expect it. However, I do feel that the EFC calculators should take into account the tax regimes of the various states and regional variations in the cost of living.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it depends. Are they middle or upper class? Probably middle (the real middle).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no issue with that. I completely understand that it’s true. But that’s an upper class neighborhood. I live in a lower class neighborhood. Lots of people live in middle class neighborhoods. A starter home near the mansions outside LA is probably $1.5 million. That doesn’t mean that the people who live there are middle class; it just means they live in an area with a high cost of living.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are just going to have to agree to disagree. $150,000 may not feel like a lot in New Jersey, but it is a lot. By virtue of living in NJ, you have chosen or it has been chosen for you that you are living in an area with a high cost of living. It may not feel like you have much money there, but that’s not because you don’t have a lot of money, it’s because you live in a high income area. If you live somewhere expensive - like some place with high property taxes - the standard of living is high, because there is some reason that you won’t or can’t leave. Therefore, income and standard of living are very closely related.</p>
<p>
Do you know how much income those positions provide in places like NYC?</p>
<p>How would you distinguish between “middle class” and “middle income?”</p>
<p>Housing is so variable-
My neighborhood has lots of new condos- built after single family housing from the 1940s was torn down by developers-
However, there is somewhat of a glut now- as condo pricing has been reduced by 35% in this former blue collar neighborhood ( where families from " Deadliest catch may have lived).
A two bedroom condo- starts at $400,000- this is * after * price was reduced 35%?</p>
<p>xcuse me.</p>
<p>ha- ha- ha.
;)</p>
<p>How can someone who is working as a barista afford that?</p>
<p>My house, a 1928 colonial on a smallish lot would sell for at least $850,000 after the real estate meltdown. I don’t have all the McMansion features, I do have a very nice but smallish kitchen.</p>
<p>“By virtue of living in NJ, you have chosen or it has been chosen for you that you are living in an area with a high cost of living. It may not feel like you have much money there, but that’s not because you don’t have a lot of money, it’s because you live in a high income area. If you live somewhere expensive - like some place with high property taxes - the standard of living is high, because there is some reason that you won’t or can’t leave.”</p>
<p>what school do you go to again? </p>
<p>If they paid me in Yen, Id be a millionaire or something. income means nothing apart from prices. </p>
<p>Two caveats - SOME of what we buy is not location dependent - when we go on vacation for example - or very little - retail goods usually have very little location component - but some things - esp real estate and services - have a huge location component.</p>
<p>Now some folks choose to live in hawaii for the climate, lets say. Most folks who live in NY or SF or DC do so for their careers. They cannot earn as much elsewhere. </p>
<p>Some earns say 150k in NY. In omaha, with the same quals, they would earn, let say 100k. Looking at income and prices and NOT looking at colleges, they determined NY was a better place to be than omaha. There is somewhere an earner in Omaha with 100k who has the same SOL as the 150k NYer. There is also someone earning 150K in omaha. Obviously someone “more successful” than someone earning 100 k in omaha OR someone earning 150k in NY.</p>
<p>FAFSA EFC calcs and calcs based on it, treat the 150k NYer and 150K Omaha as the same, even though in reality the sacrifices they will have to make in SOL to pay the EFC are not the same. The 100k Omaha gets a lower EFC than either the 150k omaha or the 150k NYer.</p>
<p>The principle behind estimating a higher “need” for the 100 omahan vs the 150 k omahan is clear. If that principle were applied consistently, you would have to say that the 150k NYer has higher need than the 150k Omahan. </p>
<p>is that clear?</p>
<p>ParentOfAnIvyHope has asked several times:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>3ToGo (I think?) gave several reasonable answers based on family income and the overall notion of “fairness” several pages back at this point.</p>
<p>But a much simpler reason is that OTHER than HYP, colleges simply do NOT have the endowment to provide such generous FA to all families. Many privates can’t even extend that kind of generous aid (10% of AIG and NO LOANS) to all students from families with AIG less than $60K or $70K.</p>
<p>At most privates and just about all publics, the college still expects a family contribution that exceeds (sometimes by a lot) or vaguely approximates EFC for even the lowest income kids. And the FA package will be maxed out with LOANS even for the poorest of the students. And please note: By the time you’re income is up around $60K or $70K, the EFC and gap is quite likely to exceed 10% of your AGI. So if the average private can’t meet need and/or expects an EGF of 10% or more for kids from $60K and $70K households, how the heck are they supposed to extend as generous or even more generous aid to families farther up the economic ladder?</p>
<p>I do understand that the families making between $100K and $200K feel caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the lack of decent FA for the kids at the non-tippy top privates.</p>
<p>But there still seems to be an underlying assumption in many posts that somehow the poor kids and the lower middle class kids and the middle-middle class kids whose families earn LESS THAN $75K (often in areas that are not out in the boondocks), somehow are getting more than their “fair share” of FA from private colleges and hence can somehow easily afford an education at a non-tippy top private college based. And it just ain’t so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It looks like $70,000 after several years on the job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The two are directly correlated, so I wouldn’t consider there to be a whole lot of difference. The argument is generally that since cost of living is higher, higher incomes become middle class. But by virtue of choosing (or having chosen for you, as some prefer to say) to live in a place with a high cost of living, a higher income still correlates with a higher social class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. But within this country, choosing to live somewhere with high prices doesn’t make you middle class just because you have less buying power. It means that for whatever reason, you have chosen or have to choose to live in that place - generally with other people making about the same amount.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet the argument is often that they are still middle class there because they cost of living is so high. So which is it? Choose to live there because they make more, or not end up making any more because the cost of living is high? It’s one thing if a person’s chosen career is only offered in one location (i.e., zoosermom’s husband).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But again, this was a choice. It’s a choice I personally whole-heartedly agree with. NY has better schools, more things to do, better public transportation (depending on how you look at it), etc. But that equates to an upper class lifestyle.</p>
<p>"But by virtue of choosing (or having chosen for you, as some prefer to say) to live in a place with a high cost of living, a higher income still correlates with a higher social class. "</p>
<p>you keep saying this, but it makes no sense. what do you mean by it? social class is an entity in society, groups of people with a shared relationship to production (marx) shared social status, a shared way of life.</p>
<p>I would strongly suggest that people in omaha with a 100k income have more in common with new yorkers who make 150k in terms of their socioeconomic role, their social status, and their way of life than to folks with 150k in omaha.</p>
<p>
Just over 100k at “top pay.”</p>
<p>
That’s not the argument I’M making. I’m trying to get you to see that one can have a high income for any number of reasons without the advantages that are often assumed to come along with it. Would you consider a functionally illiterate garbageman to be of the same “class” as a public defender with a J.D.? The income of the garbageman would likely be higher, but his kids wouldn’t have the same advantages in other ways as the children of the J.D. As I said before, the income snapshot in a given tuition year may have a high income for an unusual reason, or the family (like many here) may take on second jobs at that time for the sole purpose of paying for their kids’ education. That is a choice, but it doesn’t necessarily make the family “rich” or “upper class.”</p>
<p>I think you don’t live in a union-controlled area, among other things.</p>
<p>Some of this argument is not real world based. I live on LI because I grew up here. I was among those whose parents did not want to spend for me to go to an elite school, so I attended Stony Brook. Then the LI boy I met did not want to move so I could go to grad so, so I got my PhD there too.</p>
<p>My job offers came from local colleges since Stony Brook does not really have a national reputation.</p>
<p>So which is it? Am I middle class because I did not spend for college? or upper class because I “choose” to live on LI?</p>
<p>Now I have an 86 year old mom, and I am the only one to see to her emergencies. I guess that’s a luxury, too.</p>
<p>I guarantee that we do not live an upper class lifestyle no matter what the figures say.</p>
<p>And for example, a dear friend was married to a guy who taught at the U of Fargo. He didn’t earn much, and she didn’t work. When he got a gov’t job and they moved to VA he tripled his salary but they halved the size of the their house and had to do a lot of penny pinching.</p>
<p>Numbers just do not tell the story, which is why the CSS profile, at least, should look at outgo.</p>
<p>And we can all define “class” anyway he want, but if $350,000.00 is a generally agreed upon cut-off, I don’t see why we wouldn’t use it.</p>
<p>And I don’t see people making that asking for FA.</p>
<p>I’m agree with applicannot 100% and would like to add that the ‘real’ lower to middle class is squeezed more than the “pretend” middle class…anyone making over 120k is not middle class-no way! You are upper middle class. Your family can still afford state flagship with no finaid…it’s a stretch, but it’d doable. For families like mine and applicannot’s, a state flagship is extremely out of reach. Penn State’s TUITION is 14k…I cannot afford that even with loans. Even with generous aid, most schools are hard for lower income families to afford. Our EFC’s are rarely FAMILY contributions, normally they are STUDENT contributions. even if they are piddly, normally the student will take out the full debt to cover them.
So, even if you can’t afford dream school, state flagship is still a real option for most ofyou…be grateful for that. At least you have that option. If it wasn’t for great finaid, I would be going to community college-and struggling to even handle that</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>but if you live in Northern NJ, in commuting distance to NYC, then there are towns a stone’s throw from you where you can buy a 1920s colonial on a smallish lot for 200K (we’d be happy to get that for ours right now!)</p>