<p>"Of course. I was responding specifically to momma-three’s statement that if a family can’t afford to pay $50k a year that the school says they can afford, then the family must have “done something wrong.” "</p>
<p>Yes, well, unfortunately she keeps handing “the other side” nice fat strawmen :)</p>
<p>I think what this thread demonstrates is that the democratizing effect of higher education apparent in the US since WW 2 has hit a bit of a bump in the road but is likely to survive.</p>
<p>People- you could not even be having this discussion in most places in the world. You have a talented kid in parts of Africa? Good luck paying school fees to get the kid through 5th grade let alone worry about University.</p>
<p>I think it’s helpful to take a step back and just be grateful.</p>
<p>I have cousins in Europe. You don’t want a kid with an LD or even plain old fashioned 'late bloomer" in the public school system there. The kid can be brilliant and creative but if he or she has a headache the day of one of the many tests which determine your fate, by the time you turn around in 8th grade, the kid you thought would end up studying engineering or computer science is tracked in a vocational program to become a bookkeeper or accounting clerk with a “certificate”, not a degree.</p>
<p>So celebrate living in the land of second chances, where not going to Harvard won’t scar you for life; where going to Michigan State and not U Michigan can still lead you to an interesting and challenging intellectual experience; where being poor and talented can get you to the same place as being rich and talented.</p>
<p>Yes, it stinks paying for college. But living in one of the countries where college is virtually free stinks if you’re a late-blooming kid or the parent of said kid, or even a kid who would flourish at one of the CCTL type of schools but can’t get into your country’s version of HYP.</p>
<p>Brooklyn, not so sure I agree with THAT statement. Unless you are super rich or get an inheritance, money only stretches so far. A school telling you that you can afford them is sometimes like a mortgage banker selling you a lot more house than you can afford, as well. We put our pen to paper and figured out what was in the budget. That’s what it really takes.</p>
<p>I happily destroy strawmen on both sides. :)</p>
<p>*some do get their kids diagnosed and treated. *</p>
<p>Yes, if your school system is well funded enough & your childs disability is severe enough, then you may get appropriate treatment through the school system ( as medical ins, does not generally cover things that are " educational" in nature.
But if not…you may find yourself in the position that eventually your child gets screened by the district as * needing services* but doesn’t actually qualify because the need is not quite " severe enough* considering the school districts cuttoff to save money.</p>
<p>*They make the choice to take transit to work so they can get by with one car while living in the suburbs. *</p>
<p>Some can, I agree.
Some places however, have limited public transportation with the poor economy, many areas families are pressed to work two jobs but public transportation being very limited on weekends, makes the suburbs, a poor choice even if families could afford to move there.</p>
<p>*They have no TV set, let alone cable. Etc. *</p>
<p>How many people really have time/money to make cable worth it?
:rolleyes:</p>
<p>blossom…extremely well spoken and absolutely true. Even if you do have to send your son to as crappy of a school as Miami of Ohio. Poor kid. LOL</p>
<p>Its a shame Roderick, who revised this quiescent thread after 5 mos, isn’t here to clarify the reason he bumped it, though have to guess that at this time of year, the first writes for some FA are coming out. There was a great post by bchan1 at the end of the thread last spring that bears repeating:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064859586-post405.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1064859586-post405.html</a> thought this was a particularly insightful point
I don’t see posters here as “resentful” of a school’s marketing strategy. I think bchan’s observations were on target.</p>
<p>“Some places however, have limited public transportation with the poor economy, many areas families are pressed to work two jobs but public transportation being very limited on weekends, makes the suburbs, a poor choice even if families could afford to move there.”</p>
<p>I have even more sympathy for those families. I was trying to indicate that even for a slightly better off middle class family, sometimes you DO make the choice to pay for lots of stuff for your kid, and you end up with less savings than you would have expected. And maybe a lower income level too.</p>
<p>"I happily destroy strawmen on both sides. "</p>
<p>Its more challenging to destory non-straw men arguments.</p>
<p>“Brooklyn, not so sure I agree with THAT statement. Unless you are super rich or get an inheritance, money only stretches so far.”</p>
<p>which of my statements are you referring to?</p>
<p>blossom - take a look at what has happened to income distributions in this country, the last couple of decades. Either compared to the direction of change in preceding decades, or to the European countries you mention. Look at the intense resistence to even minor additions to the social safety net. I think those issues are part of what increases the anxiety level.</p>
<p>You are right Brooklynborndad…retirement is excluded from the profile. Medical bills are accounted for. I wish I had a nice retirement account… I don’t but I am lucky to have a house that I could sell and make a great profit on and move somewhere cheaper into a smaller home. We will also not retire for a very long time. We knew that when my kids applied. It is a choice and although that makes some uncomfortable it really is about the way to choose to live your life. When we have rough financial periods like now you would not want to walk in my shoes. The tuition, medical bills, property tax and all other bills do not change. Thats why I said it is about what is important to the individual. My kids were my priority. I am not saying that it should be that way and sometimes I have thought I needed my head examined but the overall result has been good and for that I am always grateful and Debrockman I thought I made that clear.</p>
<p>Thank you! It really isn’t fair for us in the middle class. One of my parent’s have started their own buisness has worked 10+ hours, seven days a week for the past four or five years. Because he is the owner, he has to pay everyone before himself and sometimes that leaves us with the short stick. My mother babysits a few days a week and makes around 300 dollars a week, but having four kids going to college is just insane at the price that they will charge us.</p>
<p>I don’t see how it is fair that people who have worked their whole lives and tried saving for college aren’t getting aid for the rest that they need, but people who haven’t worked or haven’t saved money are getting most of the aid…</p>
<p>the one that implied that Momma-three is handing anyone a straw man. I think that everyone is pleased that her grateful kids were given a lot of support in their education, but I’m not sure that anyone was handed a straw man. Everyone’s financial/health/life circumstances are unique. First generation wealth is different than “old money”. But there really are good choices for everyone. And that is a good thing.</p>
<p>*180,001+ .580</p>
<p>In other words, in 2008-2009, 580 students at Harvard had family incomes of $180,000+ and received need-based financial aid.*</p>
<p>We don’t know exactly who these kids are and why they got need-based aid…</p>
<p>Some may have been desired athletes that the school wanted, but the parents wouldn’t pay (or they had a better offer elsewhere).</p>
<p>Some may have had 1-3 siblings in school. It’s not unusual for a student to have a sibling or 2 in college while he is in college. Paying full-freight for 2+ kids on $185k isn’t likely do-able.</p>
<p>Some may have an NCP with a strong income who wouldn’t pay and the school gave them a waiver for some reason.</p>
<p>Some may have had high medical expenses.</p>
<p>My kids are my priority, too, Momma. Just because I won’t hock the farm to send my kids to a school that offers no merit for our income doesn’t mean I would let them make choices that won’t support their long term goals. We’re really lucky. We have several great public choices…and they can study abroad…and go to grad school. We’re lucky.</p>
<p>EFC= $30,000 1 child, same $30,000 for 2, 3 or 15… per year NOT $30K per child</p>
<p>This is incorrect
When calculating PROFILE EFC, schools may calculate EFC differently.
Also, if your EFC is $30,000 for one student, that will include student contributions- an additional student EFC, would then also include * that students* contributions.</p>
<p>In general, we have found EFC to be the equivalent of 1/3 to 1/4 of before tax income.
( this does not include those who are self employed & does not include the limited # of schools who offer admission w no loans to those under a certain income)</p>
<p>Even if your income is $160K, paying out $50K a year for school, is a big chunk, which is why so many families find schools instate or with merit aid more enticing.
Having $140,000 after college costs is easier to live with, than $110,000.</p>
<p>Relatively few low income students will be eligible to attend highly competitive private universities. Given the state of public education in this country, it takes a very intelligent & focused student to do well given limited resources.</p>
<p>If I was a private college, with two spaces left, & I was considering students for admission, one with college educated parents, attended good schools where a majority of graduates went on to college, with the application showing the depth of the support and resources available in the essays & Ecs.</p>
<p>The other student was from a FRL background, single mother, uneducated and inner city schools, yet had a similar level of academic & community achievement as the middle class kid, which would I offer the space to?</p>
<p>An easy answer, because the low income kid, has * already* accomplished what the middle class student did with * fewer resources*. How much * more* could they accomplish, given greater depth of resources as in the private university?</p>
<p>For high achieving low income students- there are choices.
For high achieving middle & high income students- there are choices.
For " average" students, who have middle & high income - there are choices but for low income students who are " average" there are not as many.</p>
<p>For a low income family where instate COA is $20,000+, even with Pell grants & subsidized Stafford loans- funding is still difficult and even if their family supports them continuing their education ( many do not), their income may be needed at home.
Even finding enough money to attend a community college full time may be too much.</p>
<p>emeraldkity…TRUE!! In our state, our CC system is working very hard to offer a very good career education for a very low cost. I think if someone becomes a skilled worker and works hard, they will pave the way for the ability to pay for a bachelor’s degree at a commuter school and an education “better” than the one they received for their children. God Bless America. Right?</p>
<p>BBD, there are reasonable arguments on either side. </p>
<p>Just about every family is in shock the first time they realize just how expensive college is going to be, and how much it’s going to cost. No system is going to be absolutely fair to everyone. When people educate themselves about the nuances of the system, and how it works, that tends to generally take care of the strawman arguments.</p>
<p>
I find this statement truly offensive. As one of those with basically a 100% EFC, perhaps you can explain what it was that you think we did wrong? Where did we fail?</p>