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

<p>

</p>

<p>This is what it all boils down to. Kudos to all of you who made huge sacrifices for years and are managing to pay the going rate. But from the college’s point of view, this isn’t a moral issue. It doesn’t matter whether middle and upper middle class parents are staying away because they were spendthrifts, or because they were poor for many years before they became relatively high income, or if they used to be high income but now are faced with job losses, or if they are older and find themselves nearing retirement while also responsible for their own parents, or for any of the other reasons brought up on this and other threads; no matter what the reason, if enough of the families in between needy and wealthy don’t attend, those schools will not be truly economically diverse, and their appeal will wane.</p>

<p>That is the problem the high-end colleges and universities are facing. And no, Hanna, I don’t have any brilliant suggestions about how to fix the situation. I am not advocating reductions in financial aid for low-income students. But, I think the dismissal of legitimate complaints from families who have been sabotaged by being just a tad too successful are off-base. I don’t hear any whining. I hear frustration and disappointment, and I think it is justified.</p>

<p>When my parents lost many belongings and much of their house due to a hurricane, I paid to help them get back on their feet.
When my mom needed aides to avoid going into a nursing home, I paid.<br>
When my divorced sister needed help paying her electric bill to keep from getting power turned off, I paid. When her daughter needed emergency dental surgery that she didn’t have money for, I paid for that too. And emergency car repairs, and the cost of prescriptions she couldn’t afford.<br>
When my mother-in-law had emergency medical problems, I paid for the two-hour-notice ticket to get out there so she wasn’t by herself in the hospital. And again when it happened a few months later.</p>

<p>I drive a ten-year-old car, am happy to live in old clothes, and am grateful beyond belief that we had the ability to step in and pay when our families needed us. </p>

<p>Yes, it does mean that the college kitty was smaller than I would have liked, or that we had planned to have, but I’m not sure what I would have done differently. We don’t take fancy vacations, our house hasn’t been updated since we bought it in the 80s, and our lifestyle is far more Target than Nordstrom. </p>

<p>When people wonder why folks didn’t have more saved up, I wonder what they would have done? Would their mom have been forced into a nursing home? Would they have let their niece live in an apartment without power or food?</p>

<p>3togo, I don’t have any data, but I will be keeping my eyes open for it. The major anecdote that tells me these schools are concerned is the fact that 3 years ago Princeton and Harvard embarked on well-advertised financial aid initiatives designed to bring in middle and upper-middle income families that were previously shut out. I always assume there are reasons for such moves.</p>

<p>I haven’t read the whole thread, but I don’t understand the problem. Let’s say Suzie wanted to go to Cornell with a 4 year price tag of $200K (using round numbers). If Suzie came from a family that made 60K she can get a “full ride” with a value of 200K. If Suzie came from a family that made 160K lets say she gets no aid. After 4 years in the first scenario (family making 60K), the family ends up with no money. In the second scenario (family making 160k) they end up with 200K more than the family making 60K. </p>

<p>If you wanted financial aid, you could have taken lower paying jobs. But, you didn’t because that makes no sense. At the end of 4 years your still better off than the financial aid family. I am lucky that the elite LAC gave us financial aid. But, if given a choice, I would opt for more income. </p>

<p>Speedo, my daughter is valedictorian (1/500) 2370 SAT with a 4.0/5.0. She got only 8K in merit at the state flagship. It is the most they give in-state candidates. I don’t consider that “unlucky.” Perhaps you should find out what options cpt S3 had.</p>

<p>8K in merit for a state school is pretty good at least in my state. But I think this thread is about privates where her stats may well have garnered her considerable merit aid.</p>

<p>bookmark; page 4</p>

<p>Sorry Speedo, I went back to read CPT’s post and saw that he/she was not referring to a state school. But, my daughter applied to very few colleges that gave merit aid and managed about 23K a year at one private. But, the financial aid package at several schools were better than any merit money she received and we’re not poor.</p>

<p>Dear, OP, this is a thankless and much beat upon old horse on CC. I have raged against “the system” quite a bit and every time been slapped down by those who (1) benefit from the way the system is now, or (2) are so darn rich it just doesn’t matter to them and they like to think they are supporting something “good”</p>

<p>Sigh. I’ve posted this a number of times and people on here seem to think I’m crazy but here goes one last time in case finally the idea gains some traction and makes it to the dimwits who dream up FA policies:</p>

<p>The current FA model is a crude mimicry of the progressive income tax. But it is deeply flawed in that there is a cutoff point at which all those who traverse it pay the same amount - which is extremely difficult for those just past that cutoff but pretty painless for those way past the cutoff.</p>

<p>So the current system is a system of HAVES and HAVE NOTS. The HAVES are the lower income folks who get the deal of the century sending their kids to elite schools and the really wealthy who pay a fair amount but nothing even remotely proportionate to their income tax burden. The HAVE NOTS are the great in between - sounds like you and me, kiddo.</p>

<p>If the schools would stop praying for donations from the really wealthy and simply charge them a flat percentage of their income (or perhaps wealth) then I think those who aren’t rich would have to pay a lot less and endowments would be a lot healthier.</p>

<p>Interestingly, those whose kids get lots of FA on CC have really been offended when I’ve floated this notion - they are quite protective of the billionaires who pay the same as those earning $150, which has made me rather cynical and demonstrated rather clearly that even the most altruistic among us will adore and defend a system in its status quo so long as it benefits moi.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is just 100% false. Remarkably few low or lower income people are benefitting from these policies. Stanford, for example, has one of these policies. It offers a full financial aid for all families under $60,000 incomes. That’s well over 50% of Americans. But only 17% of the Stanford community is made up of those students. It’s the deal of the century in that very few people are getting it; just like winning the lottery is the paycheck of the century but very few people win big.</p>

<p>17% sounds like a lot to those who get no aid. It is all a matter of perspective. And for those students it is the deal of the century. And for those who get nothing it is not.</p>

<p>I’d also like some hard data to support the implication that poor kids are all flooding places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton AND that poor kids get fantastic aid at most places.</p>

<p>^^ 17% of people come from over 50% of the US population. On the other hand, 51% of students come from upwards of $150,000 - only 6% of the population.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There isn’t any. The number of Pell Grant recipients at places like HYPSM is usually less than 15%. At all but the top 20 and community colleges, low-income students aren’t getting much aid at all. For example, I got an honors at the University of Pittsburgh and still would have been expected to cover over $8000 a year (given, Pitt is a public school). The worst position to be in is to be college-ready but low-income, especially if there is no school nearby to commute to.</p>

<p>“The HAVES are the lower income folks who get the deal of the century sending their kids to elite schools”</p>

<p>Then take a lower income job and become a HAVE. But, of course you won’t because that would not really be an advantage.</p>

<p>Speedo, my personal example is not what I am using to say that your stats make no sense. Look at the averages using MERIT MONEY, not loans, not financial aid. Your data is taking into account all sort of aid. Even then, the dollar amounts are not there because the truth of the matter, is that most schools gap. They gap big time. Some gap by counting PLUS as part of the package and loans that they offer the kids. It boggles my mind how much some of these kids are able to borrow for college. Makes no sense at all to me that they can get that kind of money unsecured. My friend’s daughter owes $80K for an undergrad degree. Some are govt loans but some are higher interest private loans. This really scares me. What happened with mortgages is going to happen here. This young lady is working at a coffee house after getting a BA from a state school with a philosophy major. And unable to find higher paying work, is thinking of going back to school, borrowing even more money.</p>

<p>Hug, many families I know did save. Just not enough with the increases coming as they did, the low interest rates and then we all know what happened to the market. But where it really hit is when the parents lose their jobs or business is so down, that families have to use their savings that would have gone for college. Or pension money that should have stayed for retirement. Or the emergency fund, leaving no margins for financial crises even right after these years. Given the diminishment of such funds, it becomes an increasingly more financial decision to pay for an expensive school Especially if there are other members of the family with the potential or currently having more acute needs.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So, why haven’t they gone this route? I don’t know enough actual rich people (as opposed to CC-Rich) to do anything other than speculate, but I don’t think it is a given that a large number of wealthy people will pay whatever it takes to send their kids to top private universities. The near-billionaire I mentioned upthread sent his three kids to a public university, and not a so-called Public Ivy. He thinks spending huge amounts of money on undergraduate education is a waste of money. Let’s face it; really wealthy people don’t have to spend big bucks to make connections, either social or professional, because they ARE the connections. Whether or not his approach is common is not something I would know. But, it is a fact that no university has taken the approach you suggest. As I said earlier, I assume there are reasons for their decisions.</p>

<p>I don’t understand this jealousy about those who are getting financial aid. You certainly can make yourself eligible for financial aid. Just quit your job and spend or give away your assets. Then your children will be eligible for financial aid. You’ll lose a heck of a lot more for that, however.</p>

<p>I am not arguing that those eligible for financial aid have it better. Though there may be some families who are able to game the system or are in an unusual niche where they benefit from the loopholes in the system, those who are eligible for financial aid have a far more perilous course. </p>

<p>First of all, there are very few colleges that are both need blind and meet 100% of need. Also the definition of need has to fit your circumstance. Your student needs to get into one of those schools, or into a school that chooses to meet 100% of his need. That’s leaving a lot up to chance, given the selectivity of those schools that are the most generous. Meeting 100% of need does not mean loan free in the vast, vast majority of cases. Few school boast of no loans to meet the expenses. </p>

<p>Really what a student from a low income family can only count on is the PELL. The rest depends on the college, state, program as to what they will get. And loans are just delaying the payment. I am not counting those. Most students/families can get loans for college. </p>

<p>My point is that given the economy and the current cost of colleges, it is becoming increasingly a risky, financial decision to spend what a private college costs for those families that can afford it but not easily. Of course, I am not talking about those who are truly wealthy and don’t have to even think about paying that kind of money. </p>

<p>Though this population is small, those who can afford to pay for college, they are the ones who are bearing the brunt of the system, along with those who are borrowing to pay for college. I think meltdowns in both of those categories is on its way.</p>

<p>sewhappy: Sorry for the lack of empathy you’ve encountered. Absolutely, when the numbers and system are skewed in such a way that the guy or gal next door can benefit and you can’t even though your situations are roughly equivalent it is very disturbing.</p>

<p>There are so many loopholes and weird conditions of the FA system that, yes, along the way it <em>is</em> going to be unfair to many.</p>

<p>I think we have all encountered those situations in life, although not all of them are about money.</p>

<p>However, anything that has to do with our children and their happiness, even if it’s only projected happiness, is incredibly painful when it doesn’t go our way.</p>

<p>I was fortunate, but I can just as easily see it haven’t gone the other way. And we did save from their birth, but we faced some of the reversals cptofthehouse was talking about.</p>

<p>A model that takes into account economic obligations would be fairer.</p>

<p>I couldn’t have said it better myself, MWestMom. I agreed with you wholeheartedly.</p>

<p>I agree Mwestmom. There is much unfairness in the world and a lot of it cannot be eradicated. I cannot come up with a model for college admissions and costs that do not have the little favorable and unfavorable crevices where situations can lodge. </p>

<p>The whole system is unfair in that a student who wants to go to college has much of his choices contingent on his parents. That makes more of a difference in a student’s options than the financial aid system. Just as it makes a difference from day one of someone’s life. You would think that at age 18 or even 21, that cord would be cut, but that would bust the whole college system.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>thank you, cptofthehouse. I think that sums it up well.</p>

<p>I watch my lower income students struggle through lives every day that the rest of us don’t have to imagine our own kids in. Like Robinsuesaunders, I work at a fourth tier school full of kids working 40 hours a week, taking out double Staffords, and struggling to stay ahead with their inadequate high school preparation. I listen to their stories of muggings, illness, evictions, job loss, and all the difficulties that often go with being truly low income.</p>

<p>But sure, they have it easy. Let’s all envy them.</p>