<p>Speaking again of HYPSM, these schools do their best to negate the disadvantages faced by very low-income students by evaluating them in the context of what was available to them, and not in comparison to the fancily-prepared upper income applicants. That is, they openly practice affirmative action in favor of low-income students, especially those who would be the first generation in their families to attend college. These kids, who are often URM’s as well, sometimes will be admitted to the top schools with stats and preparation barely at the lower end of the schools’ acceptable ranges, because these schools want to be (or perhaps to appear, if one is more cynical) socially conscious, and also because it makes them less vulnerable to the clamor for their endowment spending to become more transparent and regulated. Of course, in addition to annoying families of some means but not enough to afford COA, this practice may not be good for those URM’s who were indeed highly competitive applicants on all the merits, but who may be presumed to have been affirmative-action beneficiaries. This is a very contentious matter within many communities at the moment. (I’m not trying to open a discussion of the merits of affirmative action here; I only mentioned it in response to another poster’s statement about the benefits of financial aid being negated by the difficulties of presenting a competitive application when a student is low income.)</p>
<p>College has become a more ornerous expense than it was for our parents. In my situation, that is pretty clear. My father was a government worker, decidedly middle class. The tuition for my college has gone up ten fold since I went there. Living expenses at the college about four fold. Looking at what my father’s income would be today, which is easily done since he was a GS worker, one can see that he would be less able to afford that college today than he did nearly 40 years ago.
Oh, and there was something called BEOG that gave federal funds to students that I qualifed for. No way I would get a dime from Pell today with a parent with that job level. And the National Merit Award I got of $2000 covered about 2/3 of the tuition. That amount has gone up a meansly $500 in 40 years. Also outside awards were not offset by financial aid those days. So in my case, there has definitely been a squeeze out of folks in that financial category.</p>
I’m not entirely sure if that’s the reason. I’d guess that it has more to do with wanting to get certain students regardless of their wealth and having the resources available to do so.
Your argument hinges on the assumption that salary and cost of living are entirely independent of one another. I am not inclined to believe this unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>College has become a more onerous expense than it was for our parents.</p>
<p>Very true. And, the difference between going to a public and private for four years was about the cost of one car (in 1970 dollars)…now the difference is about the cost of 4 cars…one per year.</p>
<p>Just because it is difficult for middle/upper middle class families to afford college does not necessarily mean that it is easy for lower class families or visa versa. M/u middle class families have each probably done many of the things suggested in previous posts. This includes moving to lower the COL (obviously only when there is job, etc. or it wouldn’t make any sense), planning to use savings/current cash/loans, having both parents work for decades, live modestly, etc. We have done all these things.</p>
<p>But I can tell you in many families how the college selection process goes if they are fortunate because the student has worked hard enough to be a top performer.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Maybe if the student can make it into HYP, things will work out. But good luck with that. Maybe the family has to pay full price anyway. Forget any of the other ivy league schools, MIT, Stanford, Duke, the top LACs, etc. because the family will almost certainly have to bear the full, unaffordable sticker price. (Never mind what the colleges say about affordability. I wonder whether they know this is bs or not).</p></li>
<li><p>Plan on applying to the great schools a little down the list, but don’t get your hopes up because there is fierce competition for the merit scholarships.</p></li>
<li><p>Keep going down the list. Maybe a state flagship is pretty good (maybe not). But the student wonders what the heck they worked so hard for- a large number of kids who slacked off are attending there. You also look at the 25%-75% of scores at other schools and compare them to your student’s and wonder whether the school will be challenging.</p></li>
<li><p>Think about Canada, Scotland because they are affordable. But wonder why the heck you can’t manage to pay for a college education in the U.S.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>what students typically do to reduce cost is commute. That will probably be increasingly popular in coming years. Thank God my kids managed to find a college they could live at.</p>
<p>That’s not a bad option for families in large metro areas - tell the student they can choose to apply to fab college X only if they agree to commute from home.</p>
<p>This discussion has turned to choices that you make and what you may need to give up with respect to your family lifestyle in order to afford these colleges.</p>
<p>But what about giving up some programs, services, etc. at the college for a lower tuition cost?</p>
<p>ut what about giving up some programs, services, etc. at the college for a lower tuition cost?</p>
<p>Great idea!
how about grd students teaching some sections, doing away with some science labs and cutting classroom positions ?
Public schools are doing all that * plus * they are raising tuition too.
In our state 14%.
Oh but you wanted * cheaper * tuition.</p>
<p>…That’s not a bad option for families in large metro areas - tell the student they can choose to apply to fab college X only if they agree to commute from home…</p>
<p>As in NY, SF. That way they can pay for higher cost of living in metro area. </p>
<p>Brooklynborndad, it’s not injustice if the country refuses to help you pay for higher standard of living you get in high cost area.</p>
<p>But I don’t have a lot of sympathy even though I try to point out that her D has many attractive options for college if she ratchets down her expectations a little. They can’t afford NYU (the dream school) which is where all the anger is going right now. They know they’ll get a lousy package and they know they’ve got another kid in HS who will also want a similar college experience. But does NYU have a responsibility, all things being equal, to subsidize their choices if their policy/use of financial aid wouldn’t otherwise result in much money from them?</p>
<p>Yes, life is choices. Why do they think that the “end all, be all” is NYU? And, if that was stubbornly their goal, why did they make the choices that they did? Very cross purposes.</p>
<p>To me, if you’re going to take the mommy route, and that will change what you can afford for college, then you need to use your smarts and raise your kids to know that schools like NYU will not be possible - If they grow up knowing that, then schools like NYU don’t become “dream schools”. There was a time when people knew their financial limitations and didn’t whine and moan about what they couldn’t have.</p>
<p>You can! Go to a cheaper school. The reason “elite” schools are “elite” is because they provide so many extra services (and of course, because of the name brand). It is not difficult to find a school that has a lower tuition cost and fewer perks.</p>
<p>Mom2, I agree with you 100%. But isn’t that the point of this entire thread… that people don’t like what the consequences of their choices turn out to be? You can be a professional and earning a “good” salary and still not be able to afford what you want when you want it? or you don’t like being told that if you moved from Armonk to Portchester you could have saved enough money to be a full freight payer? And that two incomes probably means more savings and more retirement security than one? Or that your career decisions 10 years ago have stalled your income growth?</p>
<p>I hear the pain on this thread of people who resent that their incomes make them ineligible for all the goodies that the children of poor families allegedly are entitled to. I get it, yes, you make too much for the big need based award packages. But I don’t see too much recognition that middle income/middle class people also make a series of decisions which contribute to our own financial safety nets-- college choices just being one of them-- and that it’s really not more fun or more liberating to be genuinely disadvantaged… vs. just having decided NOT to work, or NOT to take that promotion when the company wanted to move you to Dayton OH or NOT to take on more responsibility which would likely make you a contender for bigger jobs down the road.</p>
<p>It’s easy to look at your neighbor and whine that they have more money. Or look behind you at someone who didn’t have access to a college education and is stuck in the underclass. It is harder to own up to the decisions that you and your spouse made which now mean that your kid is choosing from a different set of options than you had hoped. </p>
<p>But that’s not Harvard’s fault, or Tufts, or NYU’s. And don’t blame FAFSA or Profile. Yes, we’d all like a system where we pay less for college, even the poor kids making out like bandits with their Pell grants.</p>
Perhaps this is true for the upper middle class; but it is patently false for the middle middle class, which will certainly qualify for some level of need-based aid (whether the family can meet EFC is another matter, but they would not be expected to pay sticker price at the elites). Many counterexamples have been given for middle middle class students/families who made things work; I can also provide upper middle class counterexamples, but what’s the point? Those families are not you, and you may well have extenuating circumstances that make need-based aid truly unaffordable.</li>
</ol>
<p>My issue is with your insistence that the colleges are lying about affordability; truly they have not extended their pledge to everyone, but they’re telling the truth for a large majority of the U.S. population.</p>
<p>Blossom – I think some of the pain is from ambivalence. The parents who go for broke and sacrifice all for the dream college or the parents who survey their finances and calmly decide they can’t afford that and clearly communicate that to their kids all seem okay.</p>
<p>The folks who seem to be suffering are the folks who can’t make up their minds about what they want to sacrifice and what is more important to them, and they understandably want it all. That’s when the emotional trouble starts.</p>
<p>I think you’re right mythmom about this and a lot of other things. Your posts about the “mommy wars” was spot on. This is more of the same and is something kids can’t understand yet because it’s outside their realm of experience. What I think is a large part of this whole conflict is the visceral, primal desire of most parents to want EVERYTHING for their kids and to feel personally responsible for making that happen. If the kid has to make a hard choice, intellectually we can say “Isn’t it wonderful that our state school is so good?”, but in our psyches we’re beating ourselves up for not having sold that kidney to allow Johnny to go to the dream school. And, again, kids can argue against the logic and ethics, but they can not yet speak to the pull of parenthood, so applicannot, keix and the other students are completely missing a major piece of the puzzle that explains the views of the parents. Parents (especially mothers) are also masters of personal guilt. If Johnny has to make a tough choice, then surely there was something I could have done on that Tuesday when he was in fourth grade to make everything perfect for him. But, hey, if it wasn’t college it would be something else because parenting is so all-consuming for most of us that we can’t really relax and let it flow. </p>
<p>So Keix and applicannot, when you’re getting angry and frustrated with what you’re reading from parents please do try to understand that there really is a missing piece for you guys.</p>
<p>Kelowna - I’m making this up as I go, with no statistics to back me up whatsoever. But I’d consider middle middle to be around 70-100k and upper middle to be 130-180k… with some flexibility in there, as obviously it’s not a linear progression. That would just be my gut response. I’d also define 180k-250k as upper class but not wealthy, if that makes any sense.</p>
<p>EDIT: Income, not class. I’d call my own family middle-middle income but closer to lower-middle class… though my much younger sister will be raised as middle-middle class. Actually, I read another term somewhere that is very fitting… “straddling class.”</p>
<p>ZM, LOL - I pray to the atheist gods that I can resist the biological pull of motherhood. I really would not make a good mother and have no desire to “learn” how to be one. I’m OK with being a genetic dead-end, please and thank you.</p>