<p>The last people to “attack” posters would be university employees. We are VERY aware of high education costs. Believe me, the costs are not due to high staff salaries. I work at a large state university in the financial aid area. All of my peers either have master’s degrees or are working toward them, yet we earn less than $32K. We also struggle with funding our own children’s education.</p>
<p>We don’t make the financial aid rules! Contact your representative if your really want change. </p>
<p>There is a lot of good advice here. Be realistic, determine what your family can afford, and avoid loans if at all possible -even if that means not attending your dream school.</p>
<p>*I think my EFC is ridiculously high because:</p>
<ol>
<li>No college even costs that amount</li>
<li>It is OVER 1/3 of our **after tax **income (as I state in my original post)</li>
</ol>
<p>*</p>
<p>Your EFC may be higher than what a college costs, but that doesn’t matter. It can be as high as $99k. The reason why EFC will go higher than the COA of a school, is because a family may have more than one child in school. If it were “set” to not exceed - say $55k - then when you put in that you have 2 kids in college, you would be scratching your head and wondering why your EFC was not splitting in half.</p>
<p>Right now, your EFC is $70k for one child in school…yes, that’s more than any school costs.</p>
<p>BUT… if you have 2 kids in college, your EFC for EACH child would be about $35k per child…that’s not more than what any college costs. </p>
<p>*It (EFC) is OVER 1/3 of our **after tax **income *</p>
<p>And…EFC is not really a percentage of “after tax” income…because that includes such things as mortgage interest deductions, and of course, taxes. Frankly, if your EFC is only 1/3 of your AFTER TAX income, count yourself as lucky. Many people here will tell you that their EFCs are 1/3 of their AGI income. </p>
<p>Frankly, if $70k is 1/3 of your “after tax” income, then your income is really high…probably in the $300k per year range.</p>
<p>I work at another school in the UT system. Benefits/retirement are items being considered by the Texas Legislature for the chopping block. We’ve had budget reductions the last several years, so no pay increase during last 3 years, hiring freeze, and no merit increases for the forseeable future. My kids do not get free tuition (neither do I).</p>
<p>I suspect some posters are university employees, and have a vested interest in the present system. </p>
<hr>
<p>Another university employee here, earning far less than what many recent grads earn in the private sector. My benefits are not all that awesome, to be honest. If we save at least 5% in a 403b, we get a 5% match … that’s it for retirement (and 5% of my salary isn’t much). No retirement benefits such as pension, insurance, etc. Our health insurance is not free to us; we pay both monthly costs & copays. We pay for parking. Employees can get free tuition for a couple classes per semester, but since we already need degrees to get our jobs, that’s not much of a draw for folks like me. Our kids can get half off tuition for a limited number of credits per semester (undergrad only). My job is extremely technical in nature, and it requires a lot of training, a ton of high-pressure-get-it-done-now work, an intelligent mind, and a huge degree of patience as we often get yelled at (we don’t make the rules, but we are bound by them … which p***es folks off regularly). I do my job for many reasons, but high pay and a vested interest in keeping things “as they are” is not among them.</p>
<p>Kelsmom, not every kid is an investment banker, a lot dont even have jobs. Even if you do not do your job for the pay, my guess is that if there were an opening there would be 100s of applicants.</p>
<p>So what? There are probably a million qualified applicants for Goldman Sachs jobs that pay $100 million in bonuses - I don’t see you demanding that they cut their pay.</p>
<p>It’s OK for giant corporations to pay multi-million-dollar salaries, but God forbid public sector employees make a decent living, right?</p>
<p>I dont think anyone at Goldman is complaining that they should not have to either face salary cuts, but rather should either recieve more government aid or be able to charge students more. </p>
<p>Actually, slightly OT, I was appalled when I found out that part of the AIG bailout went to Goldman Sachs and foreign banks (and even more appalled when Geithner said he didnt know, notwithstanding he was head of the NY Fed at the time). But other than that, Goldman does not get public funds, and does not provide services to the masses. You dont want to use Goldman Sachs – dont. </p>
<p>But the public sector is and should be under public scrutiny. I am fearful of allowing State Universities to become independent, as I do not see any committment to keep tuition low.</p>
<p>Private sector jobs are different…the pay isn’t from taxpayers. And, if there were a million qualified applicants for those jobs, they wouldn’t get paid so much. People get paid a lot of money when they can do something that others don’t do as well…actors, athletes, CEOs, etc.</p>
<p>That said, it sounds like Kelsmom and others are being paid way too little for what they do.</p>
<p>Polarscribe…in response to one of your earlier thread…if the feds started directing more money to publics to reduce costs, it would soon be argued that none of these schools could charge OOS fees to OOS students - since the feds, and not the states, would be funding them. That would create a whole nuther headache.</p>
<p>Mom2, I don’t know what Kelsmom does – so I can not say positively. But lets say she works in finacial aid. Is that much different than an H & R block tax preparer? You apply a set of arbitrary rules to a situation?</p>
<p>What I am saying is that not all public university employees are overpaid, nor do all public university employees get overly generous benefits. There isn’t a job in my area that wouldn’t have a ton of applicants for an opening … there are that many folks out of work … not sure what that has to do with whether or not the person who holds one of those jobs is overpaid or otherwise overcompensated. The bottom line is, “I suspect some posters are university employees, and have a vested interest in the present system” is a statement that makes no sense to me. I am not part of the problem, and I agree that tuition is ridiculously high at many schools. I agree that state funding is low. I agree that federal financial aid is flawed. I agree with many things. I have no interest in keeping things as they are. But I am not, nor are most other public university employees, the reason things are as they are.</p>
<p>Kelsmom, I actually think that most Public University employees are the reason things are what they are, but in not in a bad way. But that is not what I am getting at. What I do not want to happen is to have universities in essence allow academia to take control of universities, as I am concerned that will result in tuition increases.</p>
<p>By that logic, why don’t we just outsource our universities to India? I bet you could get qualified professors there to teleconference and Skype to our students with giant screens in auditoriums. Who needs professors or graduate students?</p>
<p>There is always someone, somewhere that will be desperate enough to do something cheaper. If you want to keep driving our society into the lowest common denominator, don’t complain when they come for your job next.</p>
<p>As a CC reader/poster, I am thrilled to have knowledgeable posters in the FA section such as Kelsmom, Thumper1 and swimcatsmom - who actually work in FA and know what they are talking about. I can’t believe people would post on here and insult any of them. They don’t have any obligation to answer questions and give advice. I have seen them patiently answer the same type of question over and over again. I think some of you are being incredibly rude.</p>
<p>This has been mentioned on CC before, but many components of school’s expenses have little to do with academics. In the drive to serve/attract students, many colleges have made huge investments in their recreation centers, student organizations, placement services, community outreach, mental health services, etc. Those are not necessarily bad things, but they are not free either!</p>
<p>Once again, your reply post to me is filled with inaccuracies and assumptions. The most glaring is that you believe our family has a 300k income. I said our EFC is OVER 1/3 of our net. I never gave the exact percentage and don’t plan on it. I’m not even going to bother discussing the rest of your misguided assumptions. It’s not worth my time.</p>