<p>housing … nope, those well off tend to pay more
K-12 education … nope, those well off are more likely to go the private school route
transporation … nope, those well off are more likely to own more expensive cars
vacation … etc, etc</p>
<p>It is certainly true that differentiated payments for the same product for a college is a relatively unique situation … however that the well off pay more for this expense item is similar to virtually every other item in a family’s budget</p>
<p>3togo, the fallacy to your argument is that in your examples you are getting more and better for what you pay over those who are not. With college, you are getting the exact same thing as the person who is paying less. A little bit different situation. </p>
<p>What happens is that people get pickier about the value for what they are paying in these cases. For airplane seats which is a better analogy, we find those who can pay more will do so for more amenities if they don’t want to play the game of how to get the cheapest fare. </p>
<p>But I agree that tuition is not another huge progressive tax. There are many choices for families at many different costs. My brother who could afford to send his DD to any school in this country has her at a state U for less than half the cost of a private school, so he spares no expense on her there. Even though he is well to do, he admits that 4 years at a base cost of $55K+ would have cut him pretty deeply and DD would not have a car at school, nor would she be living in that luxurious apartment off campus. There would be some belt tightening, and this is at a Obama surtax family and some. So when the cost has reached a level where even those who make that much are so affected, you are really shrinking the pool of families that are able and willing to pay that kind of money. Not to mention that fact that the population of 18 year olds is going to be shrinking from what I have seen of those stats.</p>
I agree; in my post I mentioned that differentiated spending for the same product is pretty much unique to college costs … however paying more for any budget item is far from unique.</p>
<p>cpt you are making my argument. The tax analogy is not perfect but it’s pretty close. Why should a bus driver’s kid go almost for free and you pay full price for following the rules. The bus driver had the same opportunity as you but just wasn’t as productive and for that he gets a reward. It’s pure social justice and amounts to changing the score after game has been played.</p>
You keep saying this … but that doesn’t make it so … and I’ve never seen evidence (beyond anecdotal stories) that it is true (and to be fair I haven’t seen evidence it is not true other than the ever increasing overall number of applications at top school).</p>
<p>To me, with our family being in the target income range, a bunch of pieces of the story do not work.</p>
<p>1) Applications are going through the roof at top schools … while I’ve never seen stats by very fine income groups I’m not buying all other income groups are up a ton while this small band is shrinking.</p>
<p>2) It keeps getting presented that this band is getting screwed in the financial aid game while those making upto $180k can get a lot of aid. I find it beyond the belief that their is a huge step function for any family … do you really believe that Harvard’s financial aid policies work such that a family making $180,000 and would only pay $18,000 and then got a $1 raise that they would lose $37,000 in financial aid. I’d bet my car (OK it is old and has 120,000 miles on it) that it doesn’t work that way … that for any one family the aid would incrementally change a bit as their income increases. I know many moons when I got into school the one school that offered my family aid offered us $200 a year. I’m still waiting for any evidence that a particular family ever faces a draculan reduction in financial aid for a small increase in income.</p>
<p>3) My anecdotal evidence runs counter … as I mentioned above we are one of those families and my kids high school is full of them … and we have a ton of kids headed to INY and NASCAC schools and tons more who wanted to go to them but didn’t get in. In fact, yesterday we had heading off to colleege reunion of a youth sports team and the 14 kids were headed to … IVY, IVY, IVY, IVY, NESCAC, NESCAC, Top 20 Research U, Top 25 LAC, and two kids going to somewhat lesser schools which cost less (and one of those could have picked a $55k/yr option) … and I do not know about the other kids. I do not know the exact income of these families but they certainly are in the $180k-$250k range or darn close.</p>
<p>4) Finally, let’s look at another thread … the complaints about legacy, URM , and ahtletic slots in admission.<br>
3 of the 4 Ivy admissions listed above were legacies and they all are likely in the target income range … and I’d bet a disproporiate share of top 20 type research U and LACs legacies are in this range. So which is it … are they stealing too many slots or is it too expensive for them to go?
One of the admissions above is a URM … who fits a classic complaint about AA … that most URMs admitted under AA are actually from well off families. Again are this kids of well of parents getting a big break or is it too expensive for them to attend?
Finally athletic recruits … anyone want to guess how many lacrosse, soccer, hockey, squash. polo, gymnastic, etc sports recruits come from families in this income range … again are they stealing tons of slots or is too expensive for them to attend.</p>
<p>Every dollar I have given to my colleges has been targeted for financial aid … I wish that more students would receive aid and that each student who did got more aid … personally I think tuition should be about $1M/yr with financial aid levels that made it more affordable than now for about 99.5% of families (but let the Gates/Buffet/Jordan kids pay $1M/yr) … all that said I’m not buying that one small segment of folks are getting treating particularly different than any other now. I can be convinced however I’d like to see some actual data/facts backing up the position.</p>
Because most schools consider it their mission to make their school accessible to as many potential students as possible and without financial aid the bus driver’s kid has no possible way to attend Harvard, for example. In addition, you keep talking about the college “system” in a monolithic sense … in reality, very few schools claim to meet “need” (“need” in a way both you and I would agree stretches believability) and often includes loans in meeting need … however the vast majority of schools do not even claim to meet “need”. So the complaint about the busdriver’s kid could ony hold water at a very few schools in the country … at the other 2900+ schools that kid is at a significant disadvantage.</p>
<p>Yet the union bus driver in many cases actually is better off than the family making 170k because of the very generous public pensions. All but the poor should pay the same. The bus driver if his wife works could easily make well over 100k and get into well above the 90th percentile of income. Only a social justice mentality could support this system. The bus driver wasn’t held down, he/she had exactly the same opportunity to become a doctor or dentist. This is the year 2011 not 1965. Why should the system reward you for making a lower income?</p>
<p>That’s true once you get out of the top schools, but CC exists to discuss that exact group of schools. Once you leave the top 25 or so admissions loses it’s competitive nature and it makes no sense to take on debt to attend the 40th ranked school over the 70th ranked school.</p>
<p>I don’t begrudge financial aid and I understand that cut offs have to be made especially when it comes to government funds. I think the costs are spiraling out of range. For schools like the ivys and other highly desirable schools, I believe I have stated they are still charging less than the market will bear. But it’s getting so some of these other privates are not going to be able to charge those amounts and the state schools and the ones who cannot give financial/merit are going to have some enrollment issues. </p>
<p>That I am complaining about the costs, that anyone is, is not a mystery to me. The cost is getting to the point where schools that want the best students at all ranges are not going to be getting them because the costs are so high that without a wider band of financial aid, even those families that want to send there kids to are simply not going to be able to do so. Hey, I’d love to send my kids to an ivy. My kid applied to a half dozen top priced school, and if any of them were what he had his heart set on, I’d really be hard pressed because, really though the financial aid formulas say we can afford it, given our whole families needs and life quality, we can’t. It would not be the right thing to do financially. </p>
<p>A friend of mine very painfully withdrew from an ED commitment that he and his wife talked themselves into being able to afford. When they went to get their taxes done and talked to their accountant, he told them they were insane. Financially it was a ridiculous, irresponsible decision. A number of high ticket cost issues arose shortly after this which really shook them, and then the wife lost her job. Their D got an accept from a state school honors college even though she had withdrawn the app upon accepting ED. Knowing the financial crush, she told her parents she wanted to withdraw her acceptance to Big cost LAC. They did not qualify to withdraw for financial reasons, by the way even with mom’s losing her job, and it was not an easy contract to break they found out. Since then, one of the grandmoms who lives a distance away has had issues, and needed visits, and help, some monetary. Their basement flooded badly and needed a $15K draining, keep dry system. And now my friend who has his own business is involved in a law suit that is going to cost some money for the next year or so, not to mention time which may reduce income. The D’s computer is ancient and acting up, so that is a purchase that is going to be needed. The younger child has gotten accepted to a summer baseball camp (his passion) with a cost that is up there (sliding scale so those with lower incomes pay less but they don’t qualify except at full cost). He’s had a major growth spurt and needs new everything, not to mention braces and some dental work. Oh, and the D needs all 4 wisdom teeth removed as two of them have gotten infections, and all 4 are impacted. No dental insurance. </p>
<p>The dad told me he must have been on drugs when he thought he could afford that school. They’re going to be hard put paying for the state one.</p>
<p>Yes and they make over 100k but are not rich. The point is that the very people who have followed the rules and become reasonably successful are punished for their hard work despite paying a fortune in taxes.</p>
<p>Those who are in the “able to pay zone” are an important group when it comes to what the costs of college are. We pretty much determine those costs with what we are willing to pay and borrow. Those who absolutely cannot pay have little in the way of recourse to meet college costs. Those who can pay without a blink are not going to care for a while what the costs are. We are the group that makes the determination of what the market price is. </p>
<p>For us, we went though an agonizing analysis of our budget and our financials and came to the conclusion that $35K is all we can pay and that really is pushing it. $25K is the number we should have truly used, since I figure we will still pay out towards the college kid in terms of visits, hand outs, unexpected costs, etc. That gives us the breathing room we’d like to have. Which would have narrowed my kids choices enormously, but is still doable. This year my son was accepted to 5 schools that met that cost criteria, and if he borrowed the Stafford and paid what he could, he had even more choices, but it would edge out his OOS public choice. </p>
<p>His full pay schools are coming in at over $55K in their COA for 2011-12. Throw in actual costs and some extras, and the $60K is not unrealistic as to what some of these schools could cost in real money this upcoming school year. We tend to do better than COA, but I think $55K is what is actually needed for those schools.</p>
<p>Law school loans scare me. My friend’s D took out nearly full cost loans for her 3 years at a top costing law school. That was after having about $40K in undergraduate loans. She is paying on close to $200K on loans as well as whatever her husband earns. She is one of the lucky ones who graduated at the top of her law school class and has come out with a pay of $200k but only after working as clerk for judges for 2 years at subsistence pay for which times she was able to defer the loans. I think the monthly nut for her loans alone are close to $3K a month. </p>
<p>When she got married recently, and she and her DH were looking for a place to live with a child soon on it way, she has found that her very high salary is rapidly dissipating into monthly obligations. She works in an expensive city where housing does not come cheap. They need to keep a car for his job which is an enormous expense–the joke is that he works to support the car. Not funny at all.</p>
<p>And she is one of the most successful ones in her class with her plum job! She says more than half of her class that she knows, are un and under employed. How on earth can these kids make their loan obligations at those levels?</p>
<p>“The seemingly unstoppable rise in costs mostly fueled by FA/gov’t loans.”</p>
<p>No. They are fueled by parents who should know better. No one is holding a gun to my head to force me to have my kid apply to colleges/universities that I can’t afford, and no one is holding a gun to my head to force me to send my kid to a college/university that I can’t afford. If I know and accept my family’s limits, then my kid can live within them.</p>
<p>It is the adults who don’t want to use simple common sense when they go shopping for a house or a car or a college education for their kids who drive the prices up. The availability of easy loans may allow them to live within this fantasy world for a little bit longer, but they are the ones who choose to live there in the first place and who choose to invest that fantasy with so much power.</p>
<p>3togo I would bet that a large number of your child’s peers are in fact getting discounts from the ivies. You would be amazed to see how many seemingly well off families game the system. Instead of look at it the other way around. Exactly how are the people you claim make 180k paying the 65k/y in typically costs per child? How will they pay for a second or third child and grad school? The point is that the FA at these schools is far far better than #30 or so.</p>
<p>The primary blame goes to the parents and those who cosign for the kids for amount that are going to be difficult to repay, if even possible. I personally know several on the run right now because they simply don’t have the money and job to pay. </p>
<p>But when this happens on a large scale, it becomes everyone’s problem as it can severely affect the entire financial infrastructure. When too many homes went into foreclosure, just saying “too bad, so sad” was not doing it, as the consequence was hitting everyone. You can’t squeeze water out of stone so the walkaways were not going to pay. But with the housing crisis, at least there was property involved that did defray some of the amounts left unpaid. With these school loans there is no collateral. And if these kids and parents and cosigners cannot pay, don’t have it, if the amounts hit a certain level, it is not just those who foolishly took these loans who are going to suffer. </p>
<p>There will also be ramifications for future college students.</p>
<p>Perhaps at that point there will be major changes regarding the out of control costs of higher education (not just private, but public universities too). It is so long overdue. I don’t have the answers, but there must be change. I never thought the costs would continue to soar as high as they have, and I am amazed that consumers are still buying and filling up most seats available at these levels. </p>
<p>At the end of the line many won’t be able to pay. If we take cptofthehouse’s example of the young lady with payments of $3,000 per month after graduating from law school for just student loan debt, and if her spouse has a debt of even half this amount too, that is more than many couples would carry on TWO, THREE, OR MORE house payments including property taxes. How could one pay this and rent/food even on an average lawyer’s salary? Could one imagine if she and her spouse had equal amounts of student loan debt and they had $6000 due every month? It is mind-boggling to me.</p>
<p>We would need to tell colleges that we want professors’ salaries reduced, we want larger classes, we don’t want state-of-the-art labs and facilities, we’re fine with the old dorms, we want fewer and cheaper student services, and then apply only to schools that follow through.</p>
<p>Tuition prices at the “top” schools are driven more by demand than cost. The only way of bringing them down is to shop elsewhere.</p>
<p>I’m a little curious to see what happens if/when federal and state aid is reduced, and state support of their public schools is reduced. There may not be much impact on the private schools, because they are less dependent on public financial aid. In the meantime, I can only do what’s best for me and my kids, in the market conditions we have right now.</p>
<p>I also don’t think there are enough people paying attention to this issue. In my own case, I was generally aware from news reports, but not really paying attention until my oldest kid started looking at colleges. In several more years, I’ll be done paying for colleges and probably not care so much.</p>
<p>It seems to me that we almost need a meltdown of student loans, in order that the public at large knows the situation, and the market can correct itself.</p>