Dear colleges, You have priced the middle/upper of the middle class out, so...

Parents Forum
261

<p>As we all, from our various perspectives, struggle with the skyrocketing cost of higher education the inescapable fact is that this is the future we are either ensuring or shortchanging. I believe there are affordable, solid educational options for most kids and I believe that going to the state university should not be given the negative stigma that some would like to assign.</p>

<p>Where the system is flawed is in the assessment of what a family can pay. No one wants to fill out even more lengthy forms but there is no getting around the fact that elite flagships using only the FAFSA (or state U. of any variety using only the FAFSA) gather far less information than required by private schools using profile. Yet, as the many viewpoints on this board stand as evidence, even the forms used by private schools sometimes fall short of determining a true picture of a family’s economic situation. Many of those special circumstances are left up to “professional judgement”. It seems that gathering more information at both public and private institutions would allow for a more even handed assessment. </p>

<p>FAFSA alone may treat two different students the same - even though one is from a two parent household where all assets (except the primary home) are being looked at, while the other student may live with a low income parent and have a high earning parent who is backlogged in child support and won’t contribute a dime because he/she is living a luxury lifestyle with a new spouse/family. It is unfair to burden the second child because of the absent parent’s choices, but it is equally unfair that the absent parent contributes nothing personally while the tax system helps pick up the tab for his/her child’s education.</p>

<p>Perhaps FAFSA should take home value into account. In recent decades the average American home has grown far beyond its modest former proportions. My family of four lives in a home approximately the same size as the house I grew up in. I grew up in a middle/uppermiddle class area. The size of my house is now considered small, a “starter home” for single people even though my husband and I have raised two children there without undue hardship (unless you consider the lack of a den, in home theatre or game room a hardship). Given the rampant consumerism of recent decades, I think a lot of factors could be given a closer look in developing a more equitable EFC.</p>

<p>Fewer and fewer families live in an “Ozzie and Harriet” household - but the assesment of what a family can afford to pay for college has not really kept up with these new family configurations. Educating the next generation is not only a personal benefit, it is for the good of our nation as a whole. I think a more thorough assessment of a family’s ability to pay would alleviate some of the current inequities and perhaps it should become an expectation that parents pay college costs to the best of their ability; it may not be in the best interest of society as a whole to allow child support to end at 18 if the child is college eligible and a high earning parent is simply passing on a personal responsibility to society at large.</p>

262

<p>Sorry but over $500,000 is not very rich and taxing that income at 50% seems insane and socialist, I am also very much opposed to a “wealth tax” we already pay pretty substantial business taxes. I am not saying it isn’t rich BTW way but it certainly does not put one into the idle rich category.</p>

263

<p>"Why do people think they have a right to afford a private college education (thru various means other than paying for it themselves), yet they don’t feel that way about a private high school education? Certainly all the arguments about “fit,” personal attention, and such could also apply to high schools. "</p>

<p>Why should they have a right to an affordable public college education, apart from at community college? Higher education is not comparable to k-12. the need among most people for a school within commuting distance, the social goal of universal high school completion, etc simply aren’t there for higher education.</p>

264

<p>I didnt cite that to advocate for a view on taxes, but for a view on the use of certain terms. Granted Robert Reich is bit skewed in his view, but I think he has at least been thinking seriously about it, and is as valid a POV as some russian lit major who writes about financial aid.</p>

265

<p>I would agree that we are constrained by language, and I wouldn’t have much of a problem with the $250,000.00 cut-off, though we have been close to that some years in the past before H’s business went south and 9/11 and yada yada yada, and we did not feel very flush. We did struggle, as unpalateable that is for some posters here to swallow.</p>

<p>We live in neighborhood where a $1M income, while not routine, is not rare either.</p>

<p>I would never cry poverty at that income and of course, did fully intend to fund my kids’ college (with yes, sacrifice, and I did save to that end.)</p>

<p>Then we lost most of our money and sent the kids to school with FA because both kids were lucky enough to get into schools that were need blind, meet-100% of need, and one was even no-loan.</p>

<p>I can unequivocally say that it was better when we had money, and I would have preferred to spend my own money than benefit from FA, though I am extremely grateful for it.</p>

<p>And for rocketlouise and applicannot, (sorry if I got the moniker’s wrong, am in awkward position right now to to back and check) – of course I totally agree that low income folks have absolutely the worst deal in this society. I would much prefer sending my kids to the state school than be low income with FA. I am sorry you faced hardships but very delighted that the system worked enough for each of you to attend a fabulous college.</p>

<p>And I really have to major beef with anyone except to say that I try to feel compassion for each person whose hurting. Education is precious. It’s not like a car. I think it is much easier for most of us to forego ideas of owning a Porsche than a dream college for ourselves and our offspring.</p>

<p>The college is tied in with fantasies of upward mobility and future success in the way the Porsche isn’t. Now that may be magical thinking, but there it is.</p>

<p>And we faced this questions with law school, and D has elected to attend CUNY because the tuition is so reasonable and forego the high coast big ticket law school even though it very well might help her career. She wants to do public interest law and doesn’t want loans to prohibit that.</p>

266

<p>“Folks have investments in their careers, in their houses, etc. It is not cost free to change those things. Sometimes its the transaction costs of selling a house. Sometimes its the career hit of relocating. Not to mention disruption of changing communities.”</p>

<p>That’s true. So who should bear the cost of the consequences of those investments? The person who made them, or donors to Tufts?</p>

<p>I’m not saying you should change all these things now. I’m saying that you should do/live/buy whatever you want, and then if you find that certain luxury goods (like a Tufts education) are out of your financial reach, say “Darn it, I wish I could afford that” rather than “Somebody ought to give me a free ride.”</p>

267

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m in this position. This is the easiest way in the world to pay for college. I didn’t even work for this money, it was given to me.</p>

<p>If I’ve got the resources I shouldn’t get need-based assistance. That’s the philosophy, it doesn’t always work in practice but the colleges do the best that they can.</p>

268

<p>What I have found is that the present system rewards savers, or to be more precise, does not punish savers. My family has become used to the pain of modest self denial over the years and are we managing to put our kids through private colleges without an excess of loans. To others that pain comes all at once and seems overwhelming. In many cases it is. But the present system makes an allowance for that through loans. I don’t think it’s any harder for parents to pay off loans after college than it is to save in advance. Saving for college amounts to pre-paying loans. Either way there is a payment to be made.</p>

269

<p>standrews: I think the current FA policies at elite HMSPY hurt savers. If you have saved for your children education account then it hurts even more than if you have saved the same on your name.</p>

270

<p>“That’s true. So who should bear the cost of the consequences of those investments? The person who made them, or donors to Tufts?”</p>

<p>I dont know. Why should donors to Tufts bear the consequences of someone making a career or life mistake that results in lower incomes? Why should Tufts give out financial aid at all? </p>

<p>They do so for a combination of reasons. Some are about marketing and price discrimination. Some are about prestige, class diversity, etc. Some are cause Tufts tells its donors that they are giving to a socially valuable enterprise - why should those donors give money to Tufts, and not to Haiti? </p>

<p>All of those reasons, that suggest it makes sense for Tufts to give financial aid to low income people, without examining the causes of their poverty, their decisions made over a lifetime - ALSO argue that its unreasonable for them to discount the costs of the kinds of changes you are suggesting.</p>

271

<p>“All of those reasons, that suggest it makes sense for Tufts to give financial aid to low income people, without examining the causes of their poverty, their decisions made over a lifetime - ALSO argue that its unreasonable for them to discount the costs of the kinds of changes you are suggesting.”</p>

<p>Yeah, if they have an unlimited fountain of money. They don’t.</p>

272

<p>Obviously geographical adjustment goes both ways, doesnt it. More for new yorkers, less for their income peers living in Omaha. </p>

<p>Or, if and when they get more money (and that does happen from time to time) they allocate it that way. </p>

<p>If they had unlimited money they could make tuition free for everyone (like Cooper Union). Of course they dont. That does not preclude a discussion of what aspects of their policies do and do not make sense.</p>

273

<p>Why do people feel they are entitled to a private college education when they do not feel that way about highschool? They feel that way because of the propaganda we have been fed for a long, long time. Since I was a kid and that is more than a half century ago, I’ve heard that if I did well in school, I could get a scholarship and go to college. Any college. Colleges that were pretty much only for the prep school, legacy crowd, operating like private clubs opened up their doors to everyone during this time. The top students could go anywhere, was the lore, regardless of finances, background, etc. Doors that were shut to African Americans, Jews, immigrants of just about any country were opened. And so the mantra became, college is for all.</p>

<p>The chorus is still singing that song. I just got back from a 6 college tour last month during my junior’s spring break. We looked at Gettysburg, Dickinson, Bucknell, Pitt, Duquesne and CMU. Every single one of those colleges stressed during the info session that cost should not be a reason not to apply. Financial aid officers would work with the family to make the college possible for any and all students. Big fat lies, I know, and it’s my third round of hearing them. Ain’t no way my kid is going to be able to go to any of those colleges unless he or we borrow more than is healthy for us. With the exception of Duquesne, I don’t see any of them coming up with merit money for him. Pitt would maybe be just affordable; I’ve yet to check the out of state premium that we would have to pay. </p>

<p>Also magazine articles, the counselors at schools, the advice books on applying to college pretty much also state the same myth. I think in the last few years, there have been more dissenting articles. In the past, there would be scatterings of horror stories of big loans, kids who couldn’t afford college and didn’t get money, and the rising cost of college, and how families should be saving. But the voices that were loudest and clearest were the ones that build the expectations. </p>

<p>There is no such call for private schools. They are upfront about their fees. The financial aid is very limited if there is any at all. My sons’ school had a loan program, but who the heck borrows money for high school? Not many. So private schools have the rep of being for the rich. But when it comes to college, because the highest profile schools do herald the fact that they will meet 100% of need, folks misinterpret that promise. They don’t realize the definition of need. They don’t understand how difficult it is for admissions to those schools. They don’t know that very few schools will guarantee to meet 100% of need, particularly without loans, and even fewer make that guarantee and are need blind as well. It is a bitter pill to learn that this work hard at school and you can go to college is really more that you can enter the lottery for college.</p>

274

<p>

</p>

<p>I think one of the problems is that schools themselves hold out this carrot and say “apply, apply, don’t let the cost keep you from applying”, which gives people the false hope/idea that there is some kind of equalizer that will make it possible for everyone, if your kid is snappy enough to get accepted. </p>

<p>Secondly, if you look at something like buying cars, the rich people can buy Jaguars, the middle class can buy Toyotas, Fords, etc, and the poorest people buy used clunkers. Generalizing, I know, but the point is that even if the government (or a charity organization) helps a poor person buy a car, it’s not going to be a Jaguar. But when it comes to colleges, the poor person may be able to get the “Jaguar” education. I’m not saying this is wrong, since there is a difference between cars and educations. But it does skew how we look at the whole thing.</p>

<p>We just toured McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario) last weekend. In Canada, the government funds the schools to such an extent that there are hardly any private colleges, and even the international student tuition is less than many American publics.</p>

275

<p>You can guarantee that any discussion suggesting any difficulty for middle/upper middle families vis-a-vis college affordability will inevitably become a highly charged discussion about the relative burdens on the upper/middle/lower economic strata, and that is what has happened here.</p>

<p>But as I noted a hundred posts ago or more in this burgeoning thread, I think that’s moving far away from the topic at hand, which was simply whether top private colleges (which give little or no merit aid, no matter the credentials of the student) were pricing themselves out of the market for middle/upper middle students who do not qualify for any financial aid, or for very little of it. Apart from the occasional note of frustration, I sure haven’t seen any argument that things aren’t even tougher – on the whole – for lower/lower middle students and their families. I certainly don’t dispute that. Most have simply noted that there are more institutional lifelines for such students (i.e., students who otherwise qualify for those colleges) than there are for middle/upper middle students. </p>

<p>Again, that is perfectly rational as a policy choice. It just begs the question whether those top colleges will find that as a result of that policy decision (and, of course, the meteoric rise in college costs) they are losing a certain category of student. Or, for that matter, whether they will (or should) care.</p>

<p>I would also note that I have noticed some, but relatively few, posters who both identify themselves as middle/upper middle AND have made the decision not to pay for a top college education that was available (i.e., to which their child actually had been accepted). That’s the group we are in. But if most middle/upper middle people simply choose to pay-but-grumble, then there should be no appreciable effect on the economic diversity of the top colleges – no “hole in the middle” problem. (Of course, there may be an appreciable effect on the finances of a lot of middle/upper middle families.)</p>

<p>The bottom line is that we are still at the anecdotal stage.</p>

276

<p>I don’t know if we were far off from the original question. We are stuck on what is middle class. Is it $150K at 95% level or is it $60k at 55%? If it is $60K, they are not pricing out middle class. If middle class is at 95% on income scale, yes they are. What’s your pick?</p>

277

<p>cptofthehouse: Not only that, if you look at the Princeton FA page it will show that families making more than $200K on an average recieve $15K in FA. Then they come out and say that your family EFC is $65K so we won’t extend the FA but the number means some other family with the same AGI is getting the FA.</p>

<p>This disparity is what bothers me. We are a single earner family with DW working off and on as elementary school teacher (Not working for more than 2 years). We can afford to pay $52K only because we have always worked towards paying that for DD’s education, so we made it a point to pay down our house prior to her college, made sure we didn’t have any debts and have enough cash flow.</p>

<p>But all that we did fired back at us during FA process. That is what wrong with this process. We got panelized because we saved, paid down our debts so that we can comfortably afford the tuition.</p>

<p>Also I’ve not come across anyone yet in our income group who have turned down acceptance at HMSPY because of non availability of FA.
It is also true that we would have sent our DD to MIT even if it has cost us more.</p>

278

<p>A lot of kids are paying tuition with Government backed loans. The government backs those loans (and pays the grants) with tax dollars from the middle-class. So, it is not accurate to say that the middle-class cannot afford private college tuition, they are paying it already – it is just not their children who are attending the schools, it is other kids who are selected by the admissions committees.</p>

279

<p>We are a middle class-ish family. Actually our gross income is on the high side of middle at approx. 67K. I have one kid in a selective private that offers excellent aid w/o loans to middle class students. They specifically looked at their aid policies so as to help amend that ‘hole in middle’ problem. And that’s wonderful, but it’s one a few very well endowed schools that can offer such a thing. It’s not a solution for middle class students generally speaking. My other student is at the state flagship, and it costs us quite a bit more than the generous LAC my first kid attends.</p>

<p>I feel most badly, though, for students at the state universities who are having to take out a lot in loans. College is, for so many students, a time to ‘find themselves’, pursue their interests even though those interests are photography or anthropology or something not likely to help them much in dealing with that debt. On the other hand, it’s hard to recommend to creative, curious, energetic kids that their best option is to start at the CC and then transfer to a commutable state school to get their bachelor’s degree in accounting.</p>

<p>It’s such a tender age to either go deeply into debt or to narrow one’s options to the merely practical. It all makes me kind of sad. I wish there were non-college options for graduating high schoolers that were as accepted, celebrated, and respected so that kids (and their parents) could take some time before plunging into the financial committment of college.</p>

280

<p>"I would also note that I have noticed some, but relatively few, posters who both identify themselves as middle/upper middle AND have made the decision not to pay for a top college education that was available (i.e., to which their child actually had been accepted). "</p>

<p>Our daughter got a substantial package of grants from RPI which she will be attending. We will still be paying more as parents then we would at our state flagships, but not by an order of magnitude. and she will have no loans beyond the perkins/stafford loans. She turned down Lehigh IN PART because of money, though there were advantages to each school, money apart. She is waitlisted at WUSTL, and I am in fact dreading her getting an acceptance, as I do not expect grants to a student taken off the waitlist, and RPI vs WUSTL will be a more difficult choice than RPI vs Lehigh was.</p>