<p>While I totally agree that the colleges have been gauging the public for years, I also believe that there are too many underperfoming students who can’t make a 500 on any SAT test and still expect to go to college. </p>
<p>Colleges give much more aid for academics than they do for athletics. Colleges only recruit the poor kids that have the college aptitude. They aren’t giving out full scholarships to kids who are struggling in school.</p>
<p>“I think a lot of private colleges are in trouble. The most selective ones are not since there are even more folks than ever that are willing to shell out the big bucks for the HPY, but families are becoming increasingly reluctant to pay Harvard prices for Hartwick”</p>
<p>That’s pretty much true but outside of the elites, who pays Harvard prices for any private? Almost all those privates practice tuition discounting and compete with the state flags on price. Lower income students are increasingly eliminated due to price at those schools where the recruiting focus is on higher paying customers. The original op’s statement really only applies to a very small subset of private colleges. If you want what those colleges offer and the status that comes with it you have to pay their price. Whether it’s worth it is another question, but judging from the huge number of apps and ever increasing selectivity apparently many families feel that it is worth it.</p>
<p>Speedo, if you look at the financial aid stats for colleges, you’ll see that 40-50% of the kids do not qualify for financial aid in most schools. And the %s of those getting merit money and the amounts are not really that hot either. Who is paying Harvard prices for any privates? Ha, ha. I did. And I know a lot of other parents who did as well. </p>
<p>Though my second son did get merit award offers, they were all under $5000 and that isn’t going to do a whole lot for a $55K COA. My third son did get some nicer offers but his SAT scores were very, very high. Even then, the average COA for his colleges would have been well over $30K for the private schools. And a couple of schools didn’t offer him a dime. Oh yes, I know a lot of parents paying full freight.</p>
<p>But from what I have been reading, the number of parents who feel it’s worth it is going down. The reason is the economy. Even well to do families are feeling the pinch, or squeeze, and many who are not entitled to fin aid are kind of stuck in situations that cannot be dissolved quickly and solvently, loosening up the money for private college costs. Those who could have afforded the money 4 years ago are balking. I see it here in Private School Land for high schools and lower grades. Fewer families willing and able to come up with the tuiion $s. I know our little CAtholic elementary school took a hit on admissions this year. Too many families that are on an austerity regiment trying to ride out the storm.</p>
<p>A family that may have the assets and a job that is supposed to be able to pay private school costs, may be stuck in a loser house that they can barely afford due to cuts in pay, and the assets may be at a level where paying for school is no longer a wise choice, given job uncertainty. I know we are in that situation. In addition to still paying off Son 1 's PLUS loans, we are struggling with making necessary payments for commitments we made when things were rosier financially.</p>
<p>I’ve been wondering about this economic distribution situation myself, as we have been looking at and touring various places for our son. Good, bad, indifferent or fact of life, it does seem like at some places you would end up with the really rich, the rather poor, and the academic or athletic superstars. Since we don’t fall into those groups, we probably won’t be at one of those places. Fortunately, we are in a good position to have many choices at the next level. </p>
<p>It does seem like they should lay that on the table out front rather than telling people to apply where ever they want to go and not worrying about the finances in the application process, which the OP mentioned. I mean, if you are going to buy a new car, you don’t go to the mercedes dealer unless you have a mercedes pocketbook. Why should families get their hopes up applying to schools beyond their means only to be disappointed later?</p>
<p>“Speedo, if you look at the financial aid stats for colleges, you’ll see that 40-50% of the kids do not qualify for financial aid in most schools”</p>
<p>The average tuition discount rate is somewhere around 40% and of that about 40% is awarded in non-need based aid. Sure, you have to have decent stats to get the private school discount but if your kid has decent grades, 1750 plus SAT scores and you bring 30K to the table, you’re going to be taken seriously at most private colleges. With slightly higher scores those colleges will compete financially with the flag. In my state a low income student with those scores is not going to a private or the flag. In my state the flag is 25K+ with very little aid, and is rapidly filling up with higher income good students. It is fast becoming state subsidized education for wealthier families.</p>
<p>[Tuition-Discount</a> Rate Hits Record High - Administration - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Tuition-Discount-Rate-Hits/64881/]Tuition-Discount”>http://chronicle.com/article/Tuition-Discount-Rate-Hits/64881/)</p>
<p>We came back from a college tour during spring break and every single info session stressed that we should not worry about the costs, and that financial aid would work with the student. Umm. I don’t think so. I 'm not a virgin in this process, so I know that has to be one of the great lies of the college app process, along with “SAT scores are not that important to us–we look at the whole student”. </p>
<p>I know that we are not going to be eligible for fin aid. I also know that the numbers do not work out for us to pay what a private college costs these days. So we have to look at ways to get around that. It means state schools, low sticker prices schools. This son is unlikely to get much merit money so, he is truly going to be limited in his choices. He may have to commute if he wants to go to some of his choices. Ten years ago, we could have swung it. Tight, but doable without compromising other issues. Now No Can Do. And the economy, job situation is crucial to this change in our situation along with the rise in cost. In 2001 when my first son was applying to college, $45K was the COA. Now the figures are hitting $60K. I don’t mean the tuiton, fees, average room and board. I mean the entire COA that PLUS and other federal agencies use in calculating how much in aid and loans are permitted for a student going to a particular school. </p>
<p>It’s really hard to keep those costs down at some schools. If the student is in an environment where the kids go out on the town, not having that option can be painful. That makes schools like BU, NYU, GT, GW very expensive on top of their already high COA. If the school is far, travel costs can really be up there for unexpected trips. My son had to come home for medical reasons unexpectedly. And really, you do want to visit the kid at school at least once a year. Paying that much for it, you want to see the situation personally. </p>
<p>Son’s major has a lot of expenses for books and papers. Also a lot of field studies. It all adds up.</p>
<p>Hi, sorry I haven’t read all this, but the name “Cornell” came up, so FWIW:</p>
<p>Three of Cornell’s seven undergraduate colleges provide subsidized tuition to New York State residents. Over half the students in these colleges are in fact New York State residents, consequently approximately 1/5 of the entire undergraduate student body receives these subsidies, IIRC. The subsidy amounts to about $10,000 per year.</p>
<p>When I attended, this made a profound effect on the demographics at Cornell. Compared to other private colleges, it had a much higher proportion of middle class families.
The relative dollar levels are no doubt higher now than in my day, but I suspect the influence on demographics there continues. I personally know a public school teacher here whose daughter just graduated from one of cornell’s “contract colleges”.</p>
<p>At the two private schools my two kids attended there were many middle income students there in FA, mine included. We fall into the demographic that should not be receiving financial aid by the logic of this thread, both my our zip code and our actual numbers.</p>
<p>As others have pointed out, it is a struggle to meet our EFC’s, but I had the same resolve as Hanna’s parents (I know they were sticker price and we are not) and I vowed to make it work. And by and large, we have.</p>
<p>Many of the kids’ friends were in the same group.</p>
<p>We did target need-blind schools in our application process and found much better success there. Not all these schools are the tippy-top: for instance, Bard is need-blind and was a safety for both my kids; it came through with significant FA.</p>
<p>We didn’t go the merit aid route because the kids were sure they wanted to stay on the east coast and we couldn’t find any schools with significant merit aid that they would have wanted to attend. It was state u or FA aid.</p>
<p>I should say each child had at least four choices of desirable schools that gave enough FA to make attendance possible.</p>
<p>As for class distinctions, a few years ago I read that upper class begins at a yearly income (outside of fixed assets) of $300,000.00. My H and I don’t fit into that category; if we did I hope we wouldn’t need or expect FA.</p>
<p>I know that one family’s experience is not an answer to everyone, but I have seen many middle class families do it.</p>
<p>Hanna, on what do you base your statement that “most of us” would not leave our high priced areas and head for Tulsa if we could? I live in one of those high priced areas and the general consensus around here is that we’d move anywhere that offered (1) jobs and (2) a lower cost of living.</p>
<p>By the way, if we try to live that lower middle class lifestyle you espouse, we find ourselves limited to housing in a low performing school district where we would also have to commute more than 2 hours each way to our jobs. If you simply mean doing without, well, we do that already. A generation ago, it was possible to save enough to send multiple children to school. I put myself through undergrad and law school. Not a chance my kids could do that on their own.</p>
<p>In my state many wealthier families sent their kids to lower priced privates primarily down South, Elon was a favorite. As standards and prices at those schools have risen, they are now opting for some OOS publics. WV and South Carolina are current favorites. These are folks who can’t get in to the instate flag and who don’t want to pay for the privates, they have the money, but the kids don’t have the stats to get much of a tuition discount.</p>
<p>Mliwdad said "As someone else noted, I think we may see a larger cohort of high achievers heading for state flagships and “next tier” LACs this year as a result of this squeeze. For my own son’s sake, I hope that’s true. "</p>
<p>I think there is some truth there. My son is graduating from a private school with a class of 82 students. I would say that most of the students would be considered upper middle to upper class. Our curriculum is rigorous and I know most of these students were accepted by, and would be successful at, private colleges. Almost half of the graduating class will be attending one of our state schools. I don’t know what the percentage has been in the past, but that seems high to me. My son is one of the students who will be going public. He made a conscious decision to save money on his undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Tax dollars are not allocated fairly, nor they are levied fairly - this is my beef with the current system. </p>
<p>No matter how you rationalize it, taking from somebody without that person having any say, no matter for how good the cause is - is thievery. </p>
<p>P.S. I almost did not reply, I realize it is getting out of topic, but I guess I could not pass the opportunity.</p>
<p>RE: Tufts vs. Cornell – I’ve seen those FA numbers this year. Cornell had the better package.</p>
<p>
Not many of those in the $150-200K bracket. They have opted out due to financial necessity. That’s part of why the private schools are hurting.</p>
<p>Our flagship will be over $22k for in-state this fall.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although I respect you oldfort, among many posters, I think this shows your limited worldview. It is absolutely possible for a cashier to live around the same place on his or her wage. Believe it or not, cashiers and their families are still “living” even if they are partially dependent on someone else. A housewife can’t survive on her own, either, but she “depends” on her spouse. Two different paths to the same place. Although it seems impossible for the middle class, it is possible to raise a family quite well without owning a home. And those teachers live in cheaper places and commute to where they work - this is an option, too. I’m not saying all people of upper incomes should leave their homes and move. But when they complain about the cost of living, they need to understand that the are making a choice. My family could, right now, feasibly choose to buy a new car. It would certainly make our lives easier. That doesn’t mean a college should take into account our car payment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. Live somewhere less, make less, but have more buying power. I’m not saying everyone should do this. But because it is a viable option (even if undesirable for whatever reason), it’s going to be taken into account. I agree with poster Hanna on this issue (#79).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Yes, a $100k salary can’t afford Harvard. It can afford UVa. That’s not usually the case for the real middle class at $50k.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The one thing we can all agree on is that college is getting too expensive. Colleges with extremely thorough financial aid programs - the top 20 perhaps - can charge basically as they please, since their financial aid programs at least try to make the school feasible for anyone (whether that family chooses to pay is, as it should be, a personal choice). But I don’t understand why schools like Hartwick and Susquehanna are charging upwards of $45,000 per year - rather, I don’t understand why families are paying that! But, then again, that’s my opinion. There ARE great, affordable choices for the middle and upper incomes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so, either. I also don’t think diet pills work. Please, look at the facts before you buy what someone says you should buy. I don’t think it’s asking too much that a family should research before they buy, and I don’t think it’s asking too much for us not to expect everything that comes out of a salesman’s (after all, what would you call admissions people) mouth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where there’s a will, there’s a way. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it, but don’t think it isn’t feasible. Low performing schools are easy to overcome with only a small portion of disposable income, and the commuting issue could be worked out. Everyone wants to say “this is the only way” because it’s the easy way. That’s not true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Believe it or not, young unmarried singles sometimes want to go to college, too. And lots of young, unmarried singles have kids. And what about families with young children? They’re saving for college. And older families may be paying off loans, or in some families, helping to pay for younger grandchildren or nieces, nephews, or cousins. While some cutting may be accounted for, I disagree on principle. You can cut up the numbers to favor you all you want - that doesn’t change what the numbers really are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are remarkably few high-achieving low-income students - far fewer high-achieving low-income students than high-achieving middle or upper income students. Yes, at this one point in life, it is “advantageous” to be very poor and very smart. Middle and upper income families are getting priced out of the top twenties because they have either decided that they don’t like the sacrifices necessary to pay for a $200,000 education or they literally cannot pay (in the case of non-custodial parents, for example). This is the same for any family. A family making $50,000 a year could take out the loans for a $200,000 education, but obviously that is undesirable. The middle and upper income families are being “priced out” because the opportunity cost is undesirable. That’s perfectly reasonable, but I don’t think it warrants calling for financial aid.</p>
<p>Speedo,I looked at the amount of GRANTS given, both in terms of financial aid and merit. I would say about 40-50% pay full freight or take out loans/self help towards the cost. Few schools meet 100% of need, very few, as a matter fact. </p>
<p>The discounts are not that big even for kids with great stats, except at a few schools. I was a bit surprised with my kids as to which schools offered what monies. For those who got hit a few years ago in investments, mortgage spikes, job losses and are trying to keep the financial boat afloat but are not underwater, getting substantial grant money is tough.</p>
<p>My family members complain all the time about the COL in the area where DH and I live. “You should come back and live here where it’s cheaper!” </p>
<p>Yeah, where my sister with a BS in Accounting is thankful to have a job (and career track, no less) that pays $9/hr. Where a brother and BIL have had their jobs shipped overseas. Where another brother’s business has flatlined due to the economy and there aren’t other jobs out there.</p>
<p>Maybe when we retire we’ll move elsewhere. But for now, we’ll stay where the jobs and great schools are located.</p>
<p>Hold up. Where there’s a will there’s a way? What does that mean? Travel the four hours and suck it up? And low performing schools are easy to overcome with only a small portion of disposable income? Wait, I thought the point was that every last bit of discretionary income was supposed to be put into the college fund so that we could afford those tuition bills? Which is it? </p>
<p>Look, I’m not comparing our lives to those who live in true poverty. I understand the difference. I’m simply saying that we don’t live an extravagant lifestyle–not by a long shot–and we work hard and save carefully and consciously but it isn’t going to end in a lot of buying power when it comes to college tuition. Frankly, the job picture here is really scary right now. We know many, many educated families who have lost jobs and are finding nothing. As a result our savings are all the more precious and less likely and what little there is can’t all be spent on college tuition. I’m not complaining, just putting it out there. But yeah, my feathers get ruffled when someone comes along and brushes this family’s effort and careful planning aside with the glib assurance that where there’s a will there’s a way.</p>
<p>The top schools are just too expensive as are most privates at this point. My older S is going to his 5th year reunion at Cornell next month. Cornell was $36K just five years ago. It is now what, $52, $54? I am making exactly the same income as I was five years ago. I am the first in my family to go to college and the only one of my sisters to graduate high school, I put myself through the state flagship, blah-blah and hoped for more for my kids. We worked our way up to middle/upper income so no FA, but we now can only afford the state flagship. So now we can tell our youngest, your older B & S went to an ivy, but state school for you even though you worked hard. That or I can be financially courageous and borrow the rest and/or saddle him with big loans. Not a great choice.</p>
<p>And… just let me keep going here. FA does not consider how many kids you’ve already put through school, just if there are any in at the same time. And it doesn’t consider whether you are currently paying loans for older kids, or what you had to do to get them through.</p>
<p>ldinct, exactly. We had a year where we both had our salaries cut and are now grateful to be back to where we were two years ago!</p>