<p>“but the vast majority of these students would have been better served by some vocational training and a job than by racking up student loans…” So agree with you Scribbulus! You’ve highlighted one of the bigges problems, I believe, with post high school education. In this country, we think all students should go to college; that it is the ticket to a high paying job and happiness. For many students, it is not and yet there are few alternatives.</p>
<p>Regarding your description of your d’s experience–I can so relate in that (as I have said in other posts), I attended classes at a local community college and a larger public university (as an adult). At the cc, students in most classes were lazy and always looked for ways to get out of doing requirements or could talk the prof into making exams take-home or open-book, etc. Rigor was non-existent and the “research” projects were a joke! </p>
<p>As tempting as it would have been to insist that my d go there in order to save a PILE of money, I believe, in the end, it would have been a waste of both her time and our resources. So we have decided it is much more worth it to stretch our resources and send her to a top LAC. Admittedly, we can do it, although it won’t be easy and I am thankful for that, and I do recognize that some families can’t and are glad to have the cc/state school alternative.</p>
<p>Private colleges take as much money from you as they think you can afford to spare. The term ‘full cost of attendance’/‘full tuition’ is in fact misleading, as it is not the full cost of attendance at all; it is merely the upper limit of what a school would take from its students. Therefore to claim that anyone unable to come up with $55,000/year is mooching off full-pay students is to miss the point entirely.</p>
I quoted a part that was indisputably pure gibberish (and off-topic) in response to your silly claim (and there was more such drivel, unquoted).</p>
<p>Why can’t you just express your opinion on the topic minus the raving part? I think your unusual world view locks you in to a very strange place.</p>
<p>So is a 3rd or 4th tier school better than nothing?</p>
<p>I think it totally depends on the major. A 3rd or 4th tier school can have some amazing programs for some majors…and crappy programs for other majors.</p>
<p>The mid-tier range is only a consideration IF the students in the intended major are going to be largely from that group.</p>
<p>It sounds like the major at your D’s school is very weak.</p>
<p>BillyMC is making points which are obvious to some of us. He often makes some valid points on CC, and I enjoy his posts. There is fixed resource. Is it distributed between upper, middle, lower class or is it pushed more to upper and eliminating the middle.</p>
<p>I totally agree with post #20 that for some of those students they maybe better in going to vocational school.</p>
<p>The point learnedalot is making is very much true even if technically inaccurate. What many of you seem to ignore is that in some very common upper income fields identically educated people can chose different life paths. For instance a lawyer or doctor from a good school can chose private practice or go work for the gov’t. Each choice has pluses and minuses. But then when it comes time for college suddenly the social justice police award 25k in FA to the gov’t attornty making 150k and nothing to his classmate making 300k. This despite the fact that the gov’t employee had a better lifestyle and also has a gov’t pension waiting for him. Moreover FA also ecourages working spouses to retire just before college time. The fact is that the current FA program punishes responsible behavior since it makes almost no snese for anyone making 250k-300K to bother to save since the money will just count against you. The end result is a form of another huge income tax on people who have done nothing wrong except play by the rules. Does it really make sense to punish the not rich affluent class of America who make a good income purely as a result of hard work and education? Ulitmately it just leads to a lower fertility rate that will make the country poorer a generation later. I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why identically educated gov’t lawyer should get 25k in FA and his/her classmate nothing. The poor is easy to understand but why should a committee at the colleges reward people financially for choosing an easier less stressful life. The current FA system is in crisis and soon will collapse because in 10-12 years even people making 300k won’t be able to afford full tuition. The real problem is the runaway cost of tuition.</p>
This is about the only statement in your post that I agree with. There is only so much aid to be given out - why should it go to people who are making enough to pay on their own? Who doesn’t get aid as a result of your giving it to the $300K lawyer?</p>
<p>Lawyers are generally not stupid people. If there’s a tradeoff of “better lifestyle”/pension vs. an additional $150k a year to be analyzed, and people are choosing the money, then it’s clearly worth it for them. Especially because they’re anticipating making partner, where the monetary rewards are going to be even greater. </p>
<p>It is not the “social justice police” who “award” financial aid to anyone. There are only a handful of colleges that award need-based aid to families in that income bracket without extenuating circumstances. That handful of colleges are all highly selective, and they are all private. If those schools wish to make the choice to have exceptionally generous need-based aid, that’s their perogative. Outside of that handful, the $150k attorney and the $300k attorney are both going to be considered full pay at all other colleges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It makes a great deal of sense for anyone making $250k+ to save for college since based on income alone the family EFC will exceed the COA. If the family wants to pay for a $50k+ college out of current earnings and loans, that is their choice. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have this backwards. Wealthier countries have lower fertility rates.</p>
<p>SAY: when one hears that a 150k family is getting substantial aid, rarely are the full details posted- it’s often a matter of the number of kids in college, perhaps responsibility for an aged relative, high medical bills, etc. Whatever the situation, one should compare apples to apples. Learnedalot’s OP was about the bitter attitude many families have and share with their kids. Who can argue with that?</p>
<p>There are some people, like me, who would prefer freedom of choice rather let other people dictate where my kids could go to school. By not having to depend on FA, my kids could go to whatever school they are accepted. To me, that´s priceless.</p>
<p>There is a mystique that a college degree- in itself, by itself- somehow offers a better shot at “the American Dream.” </p>
<p>People quote lifetime earnings statistics. But, while the degree may qualify you for certain employment opps, the “highest lifetime earnings” aren’t just about having the paper. They go to those who have drive, persistence, vision (and lots of it) and are willing to work hard and make sacrifices. Luck plays a role, too. </p>
<p>We end up with a situation where many kids set their sights on college for the degree- (or even for the buffer years between hs and adult responsibilities) - thinking it’s magic. And, some state U’s are complicit, setting the bar low, thinking they are providing a valuable service to these kids and their future success. The notion is that, the more degrees we can get for people, the better their lives, the economy, the world. </p>
<p>But, my original comment was: when the bar is too low, the quality of the actual education can suffer. And, this applies to the lesser privates, as well- especially those that take your 50k-plus, offer little finaid and little intellectual growth.</p>
<p>If you earn $300,000 a year you can’t seriously expect to receive financial aid on the grounds that you don’t want your child’s education to affect your retirement plans. That’s preposterous. College costs 15% of your annual income. Come on.</p>
<p>This topic has been discussed many times before and won’t be solved here, but not one of you made a rational argument as to why the gov’t lawyer who specifically chose to make less in exchange for a better life style should get the FA. Ghostt I’m not sure what you do for a living but you should re-think your statement. First of all the cost for a private school is over 60k which means it costs the family about 100k per year pretax. I can assure you that after taxes and living expenses that 100k represents more like 100% not 15%. Again I would like someone to explain to me why FA is being awarded to families that based on education are fully capable of paying their own way but instead chose an easier lifestyle. Why are colleges in the business of rewarding people based on their lifestyle choices? The bottom line is that college tuition should be the exact same price for all but the poor. Then the colleges would be forced to offer a product(degree) that was worth the cost of the education. This exact situation is occurring in the field of law where most people now realize that taking out big loans to go to less than a top 25 school is a very poor investment.</p>
<p>Again I would like someone to explain to me why FA is being awarded to families that based on education are fully capable of paying their own way but instead chose an easier lifestyle. Why are colleges in the business of rewarding people based on their lifestyle choices?</p>
<hr>
<p>So colleges should be in the business of evaluating life choices and passing judgment based on station in life (rewarding those who have, in your opinion, chosen the “right” path).</p>
<p>I work in a financial aid office. I do not have a magic crystal ball that will allow me to know what has happened in a parent’s life that has led him/her to where he is today. In addition, I do not hold myself up as some sort of god who can pass the kind of judgment you feel I should pass.</p>
<p>Of course, I am one of those well educated “losers” who chose to stay home for many years while my children were growing up. I now work in a job that pays far too poorly for the amount of work/knowledge it requires. I am an invaluable asset to my university and its students. Obviously, though, my D should give back all the aid her private college wasted on her. After all, I don’t deserve it. Instead, it should go to my best friend’s family … they, after all, earn far more than my family because they obviously worked far harder than we ever did (because only those earning a lot of money work hard). Not that they need it like we do (just that they “deserve” it more than we do).</p>
<p>Someone who has chosen to work in a field that makes less money may do so for many reasons. They may wish to be a public servant and help poor people who need legal defense (that’s what a friend of mine does; she was well-qualified to work anywhere).</p>
<p>I can assure you that your salary does not necessarily correlate with how ‘easy’ your job is.</p>
<p>I know many social workers who make very low salaries, and work VERY hard. I know doctors who choose to work in public clinics. Thank God for them! Thank God not everyone feels that money is the most important thing in life.</p>
<p>And I absolutely agree with the previous posters who have said that if you make 300k you can afford any college. I make WAY less --less than half!–than that, and am paying for my kid’s college. True, we decided against the super-expensive private that gave no aid–but if it had been that important to us, we COULD have chosen to take on debt to make it happen. We saved. Maybe some would say that ‘counted against us’. I say it enabled us to afford a fine education for our kids without borrowing.</p>
<p>It’s crazy to suggest that the super-rich should get financial aid.</p>
<p>So what all of you are arguing in favor of is a system that rewards spending every dime and punishes responsible behavior like saving for your own child’s expenses. Is that really good for America? So take a two attorney family where the wife decides to “retire” at fifty just before the children go to college. Before her retirement they made 300k and now they make 150k. So should they now receive FA? Now one of the complaints is that this analysis only is true for the top 25 schools which is valid. But in reality CC really is mostly concerned with these very schools that have selective admission.</p>
<p>If someone is going to give up $150k/year and start to draw retirement early just to get a few thousand bucks for 4 years, they are losing more than they are gaining.</p>
<p>Kelsmom that cannot be a serious answer and shows just how little many people understand how finances really work. If the family has more than one child in college they could at some schools receive 70-90k in aid which would almost equal the take home income of the spouse and maybe more if they had three in college. If you could get 70k free and clear for not working or an additional 25k for working all year what do you think most people would choose. After all the spouse can always go back to work as soon as college is over. What other item in America is priced based on what you earn? It is a very poor system that punishes saving and rewards spending.</p>
<p>I didn’t read through everything in depth but I would just like to say: In a lot of the financial materials I saw, such as the one from UPenn I have right next to me, they project that parents with a combined income of 150,000 only have 25,000 in savings. I don’t know about everyone else, but that is wayyyy less in savings than what my parents have. Now, my parents make considerably less than 150k per year. </p>
<p>That is in part because my parents just received an inheritance after my grandparents passed away, but also because they saved as much as possible, partly for my future education.</p>
<p>Carleton’s financial aid calculator for example, after accounting for savings, gave me less than 10k in grant money. Luckily they are a very generous school and after appealing my aid they doubled my grant money. </p>
<p>Now, had my parents spent a lot more money the amount of aid would’ve been close to 25k (I messed with the online calculator a bit).</p>
<p>It seems like a family is better off spending more before their child is in college actually, then not really save up until after where financial aid isn’t an issue anymore.</p>
<p>If the family has more than one child in college they could at some schools receive 70-90k in aid which would almost equal the take home income of the spouse and maybe more if they had three in college. If you could get 70k free and clear for not working or an additional 25k for working all year what do you think most people would choose.</p>
<hr>
<p>Sorry, I think that you are the one who does not understand how it works. This is such a wild-a** what-if scenario it’s laughable.</p>
<p>I would guess “most people” would choose to keep working. That is NOT a joke. I am serious.</p>