<p>I guess I wasn’t clear. I’ve been searching through the IPEDS data on net price, and except for very few schools, financial aid isn’t very good to families of modest means. Based on my research, there are not many schools which provide much better aid than even a school like NU–so there aren’t a lot of other schools which provide better aid. Most are much worse.</p>
<p>And yes, my point was Harvard’s FA is not at all typical. I meant to counter the suggestion that, in general, only those families with less than 60K (because of great aid) and greater than 150K can afford tuition at most private schools, even selective ones. You see this claim all the time here on CC, I think, because of the highly publicized aid initiatives of schools like Harvard.</p>
<p>For all families, except for a handful of extremely selective schools, affording college is hard. I’d much rather be the 150K family than the 45K family even with respect to college affordability. There seems to be the idea out there that families of modest means are somehow ‘advantaged’ when it comes to affording college because of generous financial aid packages. It’s simply not true.</p>
<p>They’re advantaged in the sense that they have the opportunity to purchase the same good at a much reduced price - for example, $60,000 instead of $240,000. Of course, they still may be unable to do so. </p>
<p>If the intrinsic worth of the education is more like $120,000, that half-price offer represents a huge advantage over the full-pay - who must overpay 2X no matter what. You could certainly argue that it’s worth borrowing in order to take advantage of the deal. If you’re right, that’s the kind of thinking that eventually turns you into a full-pay for your own kids.</p>
<p>I was responding to the idea that the only families who would be able to attend such schools are those <60K (because of aid) and those >150K (because of their high salaries). Those in the middle are said to be disadvantaged in terms of being able to attend because they don’t get enough aid to make it possible.</p>
<p>“I was responding to the idea that the only families who would be able to attend such schools are those <60K (because of aid) and those >150K (because of their high salaries).”</p>
<p>How about if the word “only” is changed to “mostly”? The very poorest with $0 EFC and the well-to-do can afford it.</p>
<p>The problem is that even if your FAFSA says $0, it doesn’t mean the school will expect your family to pay zero. </p>
<p>I’ve seen just as many posts on here of those 120-150K families who lament of being full pay and not being able to afford it as I have seen those families with EFCs of $0 who are being asked to contribute upwards of 10K in addition to loans and work study.</p>
<p>I haven’t found any data to support the notion that most of the families attending private schools have incomes around <60K and >150K. </p>
<p>This claim is made based on the idea that, in general, most colleges give generous aid to families making <60K, enough to make it possible for these families to have their children attend without much sacrifice, while those in the middle are given no aid and so have some tremendous sacrifice to make, above and beyond what the family making <60K has to do. While I’m sure there are individual examples here and there of this being the case, in general, I suspect that this claim wouldn’t hold up.</p>
<p>I also haven’t found any data to support the notion that the above claim is not true. I just haven’t seen any statistics that show the income distribution of the student body at a specific institution.</p>
<p>I bet that most private selective colleges have greater than 50% of their student body coming from families making over 150K. But again, that’s only a guess on my part.</p>
<p>That’s a big “if”. You could say that the intrinsic value is calculated as the average COA per student. Or it could be some hypothetical value added at the end of a lifetime. Or it could be a value on a sliding scale, represented as a multiple of the family’s EFC. Or some entirely different metric.</p>
<p>But here’s the problem again. The schools that are making it possible for students with very low EFCs to attend are also making it possible for families making around 120-150K to attend–these are the schools such as Harvard. There are very few of these schools.</p>
<p>The schools that aren’t great about giving aid to families making 120-150K also aren’t great about giving aid to families making <60K–see the above net price for NU.</p>
<p>You can get an estimate of how affordable a school is by looking at the IPEDS data for net price–it gives you some idea of how aid is doled out and thus you can make some indirect conclusions about affordability and maybe the types of families that send their children to that school.</p>
<p>The special kid wants a special school, they only do college once.</p>
<p>That sounds like a kid’s reason for thinking he deserves an elite education. </p>
<p>Also, even if a top student goes to a mid-level school, that doesn’t mean that he/she can’t go to a top med/business/law/grad school. College education is no longer just 4 years.</p>
<p>I think high school kids have been given the impression that if they work hard and do very well that they can go wherever they want.</p>
<p>And, their assumption is that they DESERVE nothing less than an elite education for “working so hard.” Then feel that they were “cheated” or that their hard work was for “nothing” if they are denied an elite education. Poppycock!</p>
<p>Wait til they are employed and working very hard and they don’t make CEO or CFO or partner or whatever.</p>
<p>Now, with the luxurious surroundings, restaurant quality food and state of the art gyms on campus, they will also expect those things when they graduate. A friend of mine told her son as he was touring a brand new dorm at his state school that he should really enjoy this experience because his first apartment out of school will not be as nice, he might not be able to afford the gym membership and it was doubtful anyone would be making made to order omelets and Belgian waffles for him every morning.</p>
<p>Many of the well-to-do can’t afford it either. As I pointed out with my example, they’re in the category where they’re forced to pay the full bubble prices. Many of them are “well off” because of their effort, discipline and personal sacrifice. They’re not likely to disrespect that effort by overpaying. You see a lot of that on these forums.</p>
<p>Every day I ask myself if any undergraduate education could be worth $250,000. I can make arguments for a very few programs/schools, but even then I’ll catch myself - “What am I thinking!??”</p>
Well, you and I simply disagree. If higher education prices had stayed level with inflation for the past 40 years, that $240,000 education today would cost about $100,000. I happen to believe that the difference cannot be explained as added value.</p>
vossron - My point is that not all of them are deciding to do so. Look around this forum - many folks agonize over this. Many of them chose not to.</p>
I call this “Edifice Complex.” This conversion of universities into resorts is a big part of the price spike. Given the tough economic times, there will hopefully be some push back due to a healthy resurgence of smart consumerism.</p>
<p>It’s not just pretty buildings and Belgian waffles.</p>
<p>Twenty to thirty years ago, my university still had a card catalogue in the library, with almost no computers available for student use in the library (now there are many computers on each floor for student use), no study abroad opportunities, a limited writing center, no ‘smart’ classrooms, limited parking (now several new parking structures), fewer academic advisors, few IT support people (because there really wasn’t much need), no wireless connection, no ‘Blackboard’ computer system so faculty can upload syllabuses, assignments, (and people to train faculty in the use of such systems as they are updated), etc. </p>
<p>We could go back to the days of blackboards and chalk.</p>
<p>Mr K, many people pay the figures you mention because they can,and maybe for them it is the same as someone who pays 100k for 4 years,as a percentage of income…If we use your logic,anyone paying 75k for a car is nuts,and paying 700k for a decent home should have their head examined ;)</p>
<p>People make choices,thats what great about this country,we all have choices…What is wasteful to some is not to others…</p>
<p>The thing is that it isn’t only college that the middle class gets to struggle to pay. And I am going to define middle class very loosely in terms of those who feel the pain of college costs. I have worked with families who make so little money that they get/got WIC, Section 8, all kinds of government and charitable subsidies whereas I pay full dollar for most of my groceries, and a whopping amount for my housing. Some of them even get their kids lunch and breakfast for free at school, can you imagine, while I have to get up early and either nag my kids to make their sandwiches or make them myself or they will go hungry for lunch unless I give them money for lunch. I have to make lunch and breakfast that costs a bundle nearly every frigging morning, and for some years for 5 hungry, athletic boys. My grocery bill is/was astronomical. Plus pack a snack for after school and a drink, all before 7AM. And I know some of my son’s classmates that get all of that free because they are “poor”, and some whose family just give the school cafeteria carte blanche to feed their kids because they are “rich”. I gotta pay every dime. I work at a food pantry and soup kitchen, and get their leftover food, leftover, mind you after they get the prime offerings, and I gladly take/took it to shave something off my huge food bill. Unlike some of my fellow workers who order carry out for their family or go out to eat. I couldn’t do it with my big family, and not as big of pay check.</p>
<p>So yes, if you make over a certain amount, you pay for those things. You don’t get food stamps, you don’t shop the food pantry, and you don’t put your name on the Christmas gift tree. You give instead. Same with financial aid. If your EFC is under around the $5K level, you get PELL money and subsidized loans. Otherwise it’s just loans. And as for the few schools that can afford to give substantial financial aid, you gotta have the kids who can gain admittance to them which is not an easy feat. </p>
<p>Every system has pockets of those whose circumstances qualify them to “make out” and, yes, those kids whose parents can’t (according to the system) pay and can gain admittance and get substantial aid for college do hit the lottery, and those kids who have parents that the system says can pay either have to have the parents suffer to pay (unless financials are way up there) or can’t go to college if the parents won’t pay. The latter are in the pockets where the system does not benefit.</p>
<p>I would like to (cheerfully) update the thread title.</p>
<p>I filed my FAFSA update according to data from my final 2010 tax return, in which my AGI was $4k lower than originally estimated on the FAFSA. Also, my 2010 federal taxes were about $6K lower than I’d estimated.</p>
<p>Following the update, my revised EFC went up $3K to $50,634.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, all along, NU quoed for 2011 a COA of $58,429; our EFC at $54,929; and total need of $3,500, for which it awarded the $3.5K subsidized Stafford loan.</p>