<p>I don’t see it. He says 22% at Amherst receive Pells (which go to the lowest incomes, but dependent on a formula) and that the Georgetown study of 193 most selective colleges shows: “As entering freshmen, only 15 percent of students came from the bottom half of the income distribution. Sixty-seven percent came from the highest-earning fourth of the distribution.” </p>
<p>I dont see where Everyone outside the top 5-8% is almost certainly getting aid from every single top school. </p>
<p>For the class of 2011, Amherst states 50.4% received aid. The graduating class was 482. Doesn’t it seem that 243 received aid and 239 did not?</p>
<p>Again, income is not the sole factor in finaid determinations at selctive colleges using the CSS Profile. Assets count, too.</p>
<p>Surely you realize that those numbers are about right. The 239 were in the top 5-8% and the the other 243 were received financial aid for being merely well off. The exact details vary from school to school and class to class. But still haven’t made an argument for the rational basis for giving aid for well off families just below the top 5%. Most people get assests from income. I know a lot of well off people and almost all of them earned it via education and hard work.</p>
<p>So the school should just be cheap for all? That is pretty much what you seem to be intimating. You say it’s unfair for well off but not the tip-top to pay less, so does that mean it should be more for anyone who is well off (and where is the break point for that?), or should it be the same for all? And if it should be the same for all, how would that actually work? Who will pay for everyone?</p>
<p>If we use the Georgetown study’s 67% , then 322 Amherst 2011
kids have family incomes in the top quartile. Where do you get that Everyone outside the top 5-8% is almost certainly getting aid from every single top school?</p>
<p>And, by the way, you still haven’t told us where you get the notion that families just below the top 5% are getting aid without mitigating circumstances.</p>
<p>kelsmom can you name me a single other thing priced on an almost linear scale based on income. Are houses priced that way or cars? If you believe in this policy then make a rational argument for why a well off family with one working parent should receive aid while a slighty better off family with two working parents should not.</p>
<p>The purpose of financial aid is to allow people from various socioeconomic groups to have a somewhat equal chance of attending a school. The formulas are not perfect. For a private college, the decision as to aid policies is solely at the discretion of the school. If someone does not like it, they do not need to attend.</p>
<p>If you do not believe in financial aid to level the playing field, that is fine. However, colleges do believe it is necessary to achieve certain goals they have.</p>
<p>You may not feel it is “fair” or even necessary. The point is, the college does.</p>
<p>lookingforward are you really arguing that familes making 100-120k don’t usually get FA at the top schools? The data is a few years old but similar</p>
<p>INCOME GROUPS IN THE U.S. Median — $25,076 Top 10% — $87,334 Top 5% — $120,212 Top 1% — $277,983 Top 0.5% — $397,949 Top 0.1% — $1,134,849 Top 0.01% — $5,349,795</p>
<p>kelsmom that is not an argument. Families making 100-120k are not different from ones making 180k. The differences in income are frequently merely personal choices. I fully agree with you about the poor or near poor but giving money to families with one working parent and none to familes with two working parents etc. doesn’t do anything meaningful. It just allows the schools to keep raising the tuition above the economic value of the undergraduate degrees.</p>
<p>Census figures report average family top 5% income for 2009 (latest, dated 9/16/10) is $325,000 and top 20% averages $189,500. Since we are talking income, not number of people, I think mean data is more revealing. </p>
<p>Before you were talking about 300k families getting ripped off while 250k families were getting envious aid, often through scamming. </p>
<p>My question is still: where you get the notion that families just below the top 5% are getting aid without mitigating circumstances? And, btw, how much aid do you think a $189.5k family is getting? Excepting Harvard, with its 25.5 billion endowment.</p>
<p>The chart call them fifths. ?
Again, these are medians. It means if you line up all the top incomes, in a sequential list, an equal number fall above that mark and fall below. The median is literally just the middle number in a big bunch of numbers. It doesn’t reflect what the actual incomes are- or how many people came close to that mark, just that 50% of the total earned less and 50% earned more. </p>
<p>The averages or means are on the same web site.</p>
<p>lookingforward, those are the upper limit of each fifth, not medians. The exception is for the 95% level: the number listed is the lower limit of the top 5 percent.</p>
<p>You’re right and I had just realized that, in looking at some reports, not just charts. Sorry.
So, within the top quintile, the top 5% (of all incomes)start at 180. The same web site shows average top 5% income is 300k-plus. At this point, I’m not going back to it.</p>
<p>Remember, the talk started with a focus on 250 and 300k families. [M]y original statements was that people making 250k with mulitple children already have been priced out of the private school market… Even that chart showing how 250k families end up in the hole.</p>
<p>Later, a claim that “Everyone outside the top 5-8% is almost certainly getting aid from every single top school.”
And a question: *are you really arguing that familes making 100-120k don’t usually get FA at the top schools? *</p>
<p>If we accept that the top 5% starts at 180, then 120 is way off; if we use my 300k average figure, then it’s waaay off.</p>
<p>lookingforward I commend you for admitting your mistake. But then don’t start backsliding. The 90th percentile is like 120k. Why should such a family get substancial FA with one working parent and then a family with at 180k with two working parents get none. They are nearly identical in every way except the mom doesn’t work and stays home with the kids. As I said before in this income goup the family AGI is often mostly about personal choices. Why should personal family choices be rewarded with money since in every case the choice that gets you more money involves a lower productivity by the parents.</p>
<p>We are quoting Census figures released last September. I don’t find any confirmation that there is a present 90th percentile at 120k. Can you state a source? The closest I can get is Census figures for year 2008 showing the top 10% of Americans earned $138k and above. </p>
<p>Why should such a family [120k] get substancial FA with one working parent and then a family with at 180k with two working parents get none?</p>
<p>Financial aid is not simply based on income. It is not based on the number of parents working. In short, it is based on family income plus assets minus adjustments and allowances. And, no matter what, each school offers aid according to its own formula. Go to any finaid website or book and you will see a fuller discussion.</p>