<p>Right off the top comes all the spending for dorms and food. Say $15,000 per year per student. Then sports and social programs, research, utilities, and a host of other items. LAC's provide many things in their budgets that are not directly educationally related or comparable to other types of schools.</p>
<p>Who said faculty salaries = academic quality? There is competition for great faculty and they will choose based on a package deal (including the quality of the students they will be teaching.) Sought after faculty are in demand and we know what demand does to price. Excellent LACs are in demand too.</p>
<p>If enough people just say no, market forces will prompt change.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If enough people just say no, market forces will prompt change.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Market forces produce what is happening now, the middle class being squeezed out; the wealthy can afford it, while the poor, some worthy, some just irresponsible, get a free ride.</p>
<p>Yalebound is right. We have more wealthy in this Country than ever and they are only too happy to pay up for a spot for their children at the best of anything.</p>
<p>you should see the school that Bill gates sends his kids to, too overstimulating for me but I bet they have an easy time getting donations for the auctions.;)</p>
<p>I agree that the funding of scholarships can be really unfair. The middle class is getting shafted in more ways than college.</p>
<p>Colleges are funded the same way a lot of programs are run. Any of you involved in your kids' ECs knows what I am talking about. I was have been involved in a number of these programs. You just cannot charge upfront what it costs to run the program, so you hit everyone up with a "reasonable" charge based on what the market says is reasonable. You then have the bake sales, spaghetti dinners, run a concession stand, sell 50/50 tickets, raffle off junk, ask for donations; you all know the routine. Fund raisers, fund raisers and more fund raisers. </p>
<p>So it works, to some degree with colleges. I would have never believed the costs would have risen this high even 10 years ago. I was sure things would have to stablize. So I thought about the housing market in certain high cost areas. Never thought I'd recoup the cost of our house in Westchester. </p>
<p>But the willingness of families to pay is really key to all of this. Look at graduate schools. Few parents are willing to pay for their children's academic PHDs. Too few to insist that parents are responsible for it. Outrageous really that parents are considered responsible for their children's college considering that nearly all college students are legal adults, fully in financial and legal matters. But financial aid hinges on what the parents make and have until the undergrad is age 24. What else are we legally responsible to pay for these young adults? Nothing. But when it comes to that doctorate in ancient history, enough parents have shut that checkbook and refused to budge, so for phd programs, we have stipends, tuition waivers, fellowships, and loans. Limited loans, because, frankly these degrees are a poor financial investment, and again, few people are going to borrow the $160K+ those programs cost. But for professional degrees like MBAs, MDs, JDs, bring on the loans! For the more pragmatic programs, the same, such as masters in education. Those programs are often subsized by companies and government (school districts) . Unless a state is hard up for teachers, there are not that many grants for education, and those that do exist are for backwater or difficult, dangerous schools. The market does tend to be efficient that way.</p>
<p>It is my contention that the financial aid system is this country is terribly unfair to the students. Why should the kid with parents that ha?e deep pockets and/or the willingness to pay for education have such an overwhelming advantage over one who does not? It's the kid, not the parent going to college, as these hypocritical colleges like to say. But what the heck is an 18 year old to do when he finds out that his folks won't dish out the college money for whatever reason? And he can't get independent aid for 6 years? I think that is ridiculous. I personally know of several situations, particularly in estranged families where a parent holding the pursestrings just refuse to pay, refuse to fill out the forms, refuse to sign anything. And I am not talking about that 4.0 kid with the 1500+ SAT1s, either. A kid with an average academic profile is really going to be stuck. He 's going to have a lot of catching up to do before he is with his buddy whose mom has researched schools, pushed him to apply and can't wait to write the check. I am not even addressing the advantages the kids with all the ECs have, many of which are heavily subsidized by mom and dad. Pretty tough to have that list without parental support. Yes, there are some rare exceptions who are truly outstanding and catch the eye of a coach, teacher, someone, or who transcend any training, but I am talking about the vast majority of kids. Ordinary kids. The ones who are truly getting shafted are those kids whose parents are limited in helping them through this journey starting from when they were babies.</p>
<p>Jamimom, I recently sat on an advisory board for a college trying to make sense of limited financial aid dollars and where they shoud go. I think many of us forget that most of these schools are private, and without a majority who can pay and donate, would not have financial aid to give anyone. For good reasons, it seems so much more unfair when a kid can't have the college of his choice than it does when he can't have the car or the jeans of choice. However, this is a reality and will be at the vast majority of schools as far out as I can see.</p>
<p>Well, college of his choice is one thing. To have that disparity because of who they have as parents, is another. It is not necessarily an income thing either. I work with many families that are downright poor, but will scrape, borrow and work themselves to the bone to send their kids to the best school available. Then there are the ones with a parent with an agenda that does not include tuition payments. </p>
<p>I know that the system simply cannot afford to let the parents off the hook. Some of the private colleges are re</p>
<p>I'm not sure being able to go to the college of his/her choice is a right. Most kids can't afford $180,000 schools. There are over 3,000 schools. Most aren't anywhere close to $180,000. Is it really a disaster if somebody has to go to a school that costs $40-60,000 for 4 years? Is this person's life irreparably damaged?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure being able to go to the college of his/her choice is a right.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not everyone should have a right to go to Harvard (or Yale, etc), but perhaps everyone should have an equal right to go there without impoverishing themselves or their parents if they are admitted.</p>
<p>i dont think so. i believe you can get just as good of an education at a place like that, than at a more expensive school. i personally wouldn't want to go to one of those expensive schools such as harvard or yale :)</p>
<p>It is interesting to me that people see education as more of a right than other things that are run by private entities. Perhaps the blur is due to the fact that there is both public and private education. The arguement seems to start at the college level, I don't hear people aying that all should have equal access to private K-12 schools. Colleges with strong endowments actually do an amazing job of inclusiveness. Private colleges with lesser endowments will always need a paying crowd. This is why the threads talking about good publics wanting to privitize disturb me. There will always be a percentage of very smart middle class kids that will depend on public educations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There will always be a percentage of very smart middle class kids that will depend on public educations
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If people who think like you keep running things</p>
<p>Yalebound, smarter young minds are certainly needed. Any solutions much appreciated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't hear people aying that all should have equal access to private K-12 schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heard of vouchers?</p>
<p>Re universities, Oxford and Cambridge are close to free for everyone. Pure merit admissions.</p>
<p>Kids are dependent on their parents in the legal sense until they are 18, which is just about what high school covers. We are talking about adults when we are talking about college. It's ridiculous that we make them legally dependent on parents only for college funds purposes. They can't even get much in the way of loans without parental signature and info </p>
<p>And I am not just talking about private colleges. I live in a state where the options are quite limited. It's either State U or community college, and State U ain't cheap either. THe other choices are very expensive--out of state schools or private. It really isn't feasible for most 18 year olds to swing this on their own. K-12 is pretty much a right, in fact, mostly required. </p>
<p>I would like to see some sort of free public program available in terms of higher education. That really is what the state schools started to be and now many of them are charging astronomical prices. That, and some form of organized public service for those who need a break from the academics, and some sort of vocational/apprenticeship program. Right now we are breeding a lot of aimless young people, and we are paying dearly for this when they do not become self supporting, educated adults. It's a matter of organization to put these things together.</p>
<p>Amen, jamimom</p>
<p>Jamimom makes a good point. My D knows a kid who got admitted to a top 20 school and was all set to go. Then the parents divorced, and dad spent the college fund on a Porsche! So off to state school for this kid, who (given dad's income) could NEVER qualify for financial aid, but was effectively dirt poor once the parent did this.</p>
<p>The ever-increasing number of college-bound kids has raised the bar on everything. Schools that were no-brainer safetys when I was applying 25 years ago, like Cal Poly or SDSU, are now competitive and sought after. UCs like UCLA & UCB were places a solid B student could get in-- now ultra competitive. The current equivalent of 1980's "State Schools" are the community colleges.</p>
<p>The best path for the middle class high-achiever is probably to go to a private college that is a tier below where the stats would be able to get him in and get merit aid.</p>
<p>I'm really sick of all this "political correctness" that dictates spending my money so that poor kids can get an education. I like merit aid because I can coach my kids up to get that aid. My two kid gets a top-notch private school education (one's in 12th grade while the other is in 10th). They have tutors for each subject as well as for the SATs. Plus, my wife and I give more than enough money to their school so as to "grease the skids" for them.</p>
<p>With merit aid, a kid can choose to take it or not. Personally, I think you have to be out of your mind to blow off Yale for a free ride at someplace like Northwestern, but every successful gambler needs to rip off a sucker in order to keep his winning streak alive. Merit aid soaks away the money-hungry smart kids who can be bought, while keeping aid from poor kids who have no chance at getting into a Yale or Princeton. It also takes away need-based aid from poor kids with potential, kids smarter than mine but not nearly as polished on the measurables. Coupled with cuts in federal aid and increases in ROTC (to kill off smart "patriotic" kids before they beat mine out). These factors help my kids by eliminating their competition. It's a bit of insurance to make sure they get Phi Beta Kappa at Princeton, by spreading the talent around. The other kids may get Phi Beta Kappa at an Emory or Washington University, but really, so what? My father tracked me to the riches and successes I have today (multimillion dollar stock portfolio, expansive house, BMW, Ferrari, trophy wife, etc.). I plan to do the same for mine. That's the American way.</p>