<p>STove every bureaucratic system can and will be gamed both within and outside the rules. The examples are too numerous to mention and can be found everywhere. However the most common example is well known to everyone. An educated two parent family where the mother has chosen to work part time. As they approach the college years many such mothers simply cut back because much of the lost income can be obtained in FA. </p>
<p>Now of course it depends on getting admitted to the top 25 schools and having a husband in an income range of 90-150k. But this is quite common and happens every year all over the country. If the kid doesn’t get admitted ,or get the FA, or enough FA the wife goes back to work in some capacity. Again please explain why a one income dual educated family deserves FA while another where the mother chooses to work full time deserves none. They are the exactly same people and this often occurs with adult silblings. </p>
<p>Are you telling me you don’t know families where siblings who had the exact same opportunities end up with very different incomes or outcomes? They made different choices and don’t deserve a financial reward. Why stop at college? How about houses or cars? The main point so many people misunderstand is that the majority of FA is not going to families that are remotely poor. FA is another handout to familes that are already doing well. </p>
<p>This money would be far better spent helping the truly needy obtain the skills required for a decent job. As I have now said many times the FA system is far more about the top colleges retaining control of their ability to keep raising prices rather than some noble cause. I mean after all exactly how noble a cause is it to give FA to a child whose parents are both college educated(or more) making the 88th % of income?</p>
<p>This is about law school but is very relevant to undergraduate degrees as well. </p>
<p>[TaxProf</a> Blog: Grad Files $50m Class Action v. Law School for Misrepresenting Placement Data](<a href=“TaxProf Blog”>TaxProf Blog)</p>
<p>Here you can see the value of the undergraduate degree. For most students at the highly selective schools the degree just serves as a stepping stone to professional/grad school since for the most part additional education is required for truly high paying jobs. How can it be good for America to spend so much money(no matter who is paying the bill) for degrees that really sort of serve the purpose of high school did a few generations ago. The reality is that no society can afford to overspend this way forever. Keep in mind there is also a major crisis in America because most families do not remotely enough money saved for retirement. The money spent on over priced colleges would have been better used saved for that purpose. </p>
<p>For that to work, mom would have to quit or cut back during the student’s junior year, often when they take SAT and ACT tests and before they even have their first semester of junior year grades. That is a HUGE gamble because it is generally only very selective schools that are giving big FA to people in those income brackets. If junior doesn’t get in to those schools than they are likely full pay everywhere else with only one and one reduced income.</p>
<p>Sounds like a huge and very risky gamble to me.</p>
<p>*Again please explain why a one income dual educated family deserves FA while another where the mother chooses to work full time deserves none. *</p>
<p>Bottom line: you don’t want to hear what we have to say. I don’t believe you fully read our posts. You don’t answer our questions. You repeat questions based on misinformation mixed with citations.</p>
<p>So, no, we won’t try explaining any more times.</p>
<p>roman there are no big gambles. The mom has never worked full time and quite frankly it’s not hard to predict what level your child will likely achieve by 9th and certainly 10th grade. By that time the strong students have had years of honors math etc. etc. in most school systems both public and private. </p>
<p>lookingfwd you have given no explanation unless you believe in socialism. In my own family my younger brother ended up far less financially successful than myself. Same parents and exactly the same opportunity. I have a professional degree from a top school and he has a masters from a top school. He has not worked full time most of the last ten years(he is a writer) and his wife is the branch manager of a bank. Their combined income is around 80k purely by choice. Listen I applaud him for pursuing a writing career but I do not see how that should qualify someone for FA. I know at least a dozen other families with similar though different situations. This is common.</p>
<p>Some people just don’t like to work hard or feel strongly that the mom should be mostly home with their children. Again I applaud the fact that in America people are free to choose how they want to live and raise their families. What doesn’t make sense is for some bureaucrat at a college to attempt to equalize life, long after the game has been played. Families make choices and those choices always come with trade offs. But the worst thing about it all, is that over the long haul it doesn’t really even save these types of families any money because the FA/gov’t loan system has allowed run away tutition inflation.</p>
<p>lookingfwd do you think the current system is sustainable? 80k in tuition is just around the corner. Will that work? Does it make rational sense for America’s brightest youth to spend 500k(no matter who pays) for a basic education that only qualifies the graduate for a relatively low paying job or entrance to yet another very expensive degree. I’m sure you are aware that for professional school there is almost no FA and the big state school discount has largely been eliminated. This is a very big national crisis because there simply isn’t enough money to sustain constant tuition increases, fund the retirements for these same families, healthcare, etc. etc.</p>
<p>Wow - this made me sit up and take notice - Cornell at $27k/year! Could I have missed something!??!?!</p>
<p>No, false alarm. That’s tuition for the “Contract College Professional Degree”, which isn’t really the topic of this thread, is it? For what it’s worth, Cornell’s COA is $55k for standard university majors, pretty much in line with the top 60. Hmmm, kind of supports what Say is saying, doesn’t it? Sounds like Alfred University might be an OK deal at a regional school level, but is that what we’re talking about? A bit of a misfire, susgeek? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, Rice kind of does catch one’s eye - with a COA of only $48k! Given the normal $55k, it really stands out from the crowd. Kinda sorta, anyway.</p>
<p>Folks may not agree with much of SAY’s argument, but he sure seems to have his facts lined up in this particular. The weakness of the counterexamples speaks for itself.</p>
<p>I feel like less emphasis should be put on undergraduate grant FA, and more on professional schools. We should establish a student loan program that covers everything for low income undergraduates where the lower income brackets get major extensions on their payment period with zero interest, consequently lowering their monthly cost (it should be like paying a cell phone bill). Undergraduate grants and scholarships should be given purely based on merit. People who go on to professional school are the ones who actually “work hard” and deserve these grants. Not only is their cost for attending school significantly higher than that of the undergraduates, but they are committing themselves to additional years of schooling, whereas some people find undergraduate schooling, by itself, to be adequate. Reward people who know where they are going in life, rather than rewarding postpubescent teens who go into college “undecided” hoping to experiment their way into a life path. The undergraduates who actually deserve grants will get them through their accomplishments (evaluated in context of that student’s life situation), so that they can afford the Ivies/ top schools they want to attend.</p>
<p>Sorry man, but it’s just not true. These things attracted my eye because they were so outrageous. But you did pick out the two less common examples (the others are very common) - so let me respond.</p>
<p>On the inheritance front, I recall being amazed at two threads that were simultaneously running. In one, a full-pay poster was being bashed unmercifully due a a reluctance to part with assets - assets that had been earned, saved, and protected due to sustained effort and good stewardship. In another, a person with a substantial windfall inheritance was being given all sorts of advice (not illegal advice - your strawman). The message was that it would be unthinkable to just pass on these substantial once in a lifetime unearned assets to the colleges. To me, the message was backwards - if anything, the earned assets seemed more worthy of protection. But those folks seem to be used for target practice here.</p>
<p>As for the “divorce of convenience” - just for fun, try typing those words into the search area, and looking for recent threads. Then come back here and tell me whether you’ve changed your opinion.</p>
<p>Mister K I appreciate your insights. My point in all of this is not to upset people or generate useless arguments but to stick to the knowable facts and point out that the conventional wisdom is frequently wrong.</p>
<p>All over this board you can find posts suggesting that FA is a noble cause and vitally neccessary to help the poor and near poor. But the truth is that the vast majority of FA goes to families that way back in the thread Billy Mc would have described as rich by world standards. I wouldn’t call them rich but they certainly are solid middle and sometimes upper middle class and I have yet to hear an argument as to why all this money should go to them rather than helping the truly poor or near poor. Yes it sure is nice to earn 95k and get a sizable grant from an ivy but it is not in any way a noble gesture by the school. It is purely and simply a business decision they have made to maximize revenue.</p>
<p>The juxtaposition is indeed interesting. For what it’s worth, I’ve seen people getting bashed for being unwilling to spend an inheritance on college education, and sympathy for people with long-time non-cash family assets. Many threads tend to acquire a certain culture depending on who happens to read and post. And the thread culture often depends on the OP. Some truly didn’t know, and are grateful for any advice. Others can be selfish jerks who refuse to listen. People here respond in kind. </p>
<p>My heart always breaks a little when people who don’t have large incomes have disproportionately large savings in nonretirement accounts come and post here. I wish they’d gotten better financial planning information, and not just in terms of paying for college. </p>
<p>I’ve yet to see any way to shelter a sudden large windfall from the FA folks that didn’t involve some risk or deception. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did exactly that, didn’t really see much. For the two threads that had similar names in their titles, I saw people going through and giving a straight-up analysis without judgement. The straight-up analysis was that it was generally a bad idea, either because you’d get caught or because it just wouldn’t pan out financially. Perhaps you and I are reading the same discussions and coming to different conclusions.</p>
<p>There is a very easy way to shelter a sudden large windfall from the FA if it is not something that is a taxable on. Just give it away. You may not get it back, if that’s what you want, but just lend it to someone or give it away.</p>
<p>There are many ways to get around financial aid if you want to take the risks and trouble. It’s not worth it, in my opinion, and most people. Get a marriage (on part of the student) or divorce (on part of the parent) if it is that important to you to try to game the system of some funds. You are taking risks doing this, but if it is so all fired important, do it. </p>
<p>Hell, if I took a divorce of convenience, I could save a lot more in taxes than what I would get from the financial aid system. And college is just for4 years per kid. The marriage has been for a lot longer than that.</p>
<p>ST- isn’t one way to shelter an inheritance to move the bulk to retirement? The retirement investment amounts are used to assess a family’s overall financial position, per the Profile folks. But, technically protected. Loopholes, for the present.</p>
<p>SAY I actually tried to go back to delete my post (#392) … not because it is wrong (it is right) … but because I believe there really is no point to trying to address any of your proclamations … nothing anyone says will have any affect. </p>
<p>I’ll leave on this note which probably will sound like a dig but really is a request. I’ve read your numerous compaints in this thread and found your positions and arguments inconsistent and not the least bit persuasive and frankly, I have no idea what position you are in favor of … so instead of compaining about everything about the cost of private colleges and their approach to financial aid … how about providing your suggestion of how you’d like to see schools manage these issues? That might help move the thread forward.</p>
<p>lookingforward, funding retirement is indeed the big way to shield resources. But it doesn’t do any good if the windfall/savings are more than the maximum that someone can put in retirement accounts for a year. It also doesn’t do any good if a family is looking to get a break on their EFC for the coming year, because current contributions to retirement aren’t excluded.</p>
<p>I guess that a windfall will give some people enough financial leeway that they can start to make contributions to retirement plans. Perhaps the FA calculations will change because more and more individuals have only their own savings to rely on for retirement, and no pension. What happens when more and more families of high school seniors have substantial funds in IRAs and 401ks and the like? Do schools start following a Boston College model of looking at those funds when determining eligibility? Worrisome stuff.</p>
<p>This topic comes up every year on CC and the same discussion occurs … and, frankly, I’m at a loss of how I would fix things is I was made the all powerful being in charge of college admissions and financial aid. </p>
<p>One example, just looking back one year at income creates all sorts of distortions in the financial aid process … so one proposal that might be fairer would be to look back all 18 years since the student was born … then schools would have a much better picture of the family’s financial picture … but just think about the implications of such a system … what do you about incomplete info over the 18 year period (which would happen in probably the majority of cases) … schools would have to receive, file, and process 18 times as much information (and you think the application fee is too high now) … and the really big one. and are schools going to then judge every career choice families made (hmm, Mom decided to stay home for two years so we adjust your aid how?). If schools did ask for substantially more info would familes eventually feel their privacy is being breeched to much?</p>
<p>It seems to me virtually any adjustments will require more information, more processing, and more judgement by the schools … there is little that to me looks like easy wins … personally, I’d ask for more info but probably not a lot more and I would avoid making judgements about family’s career choices like the plague … but whatever decisions a school makes I’m pretty much sure about 2/3rds of CC readers will hate their decision (1/3 will like it … 1/3 will think they didn’t do enough … 1/3 will think they did too much).</p>
<p>PS - while this discussion has focussed (sort of) on financial aid at the top privates I think the much bigger lever is the FAFSA process, federal and state financial aid, and making state schools more affortable … improvements there could open the doors for millions … teaking things for these top 50 schools or so affects thousands.</p>
<p>The govt has a five-year lookback for Medicaid. But, I think the goal is to somehow streamline and add transparency to FA, not adding to the chores, number of staff needed and, thus, overhead.
I also wonder about opening the door to millions. I don’t think it’s as simple as saying, if more had a college degree, more could find gainful employment. It’s complicated.</p>
<p>*Again please explain why a one income dual educated family deserves FA while another where the mother chooses to work full time deserves none. They are the exactly same people and this often occurs with adult silblings. *</p>
<p>I’m sure that this has come up many times amongst those in the “FA world”. It would seem like the answer would be that there should be an expectation that both able-bodied parents should work (with or without a college education) to provide for their child’s education. I know that my children’s private high school has such a stipulation when it comes to providing FA. It won’t give FA to a 2 parent-1 earner household unless that household has very young children or a special needs child or something serious like that. Since the school is small, and there aren’t many requests for FA, handling such cases “one on one” is not too time-consuming. And, since it’s all within a community, it would be hard for someone to lie about their situation. </p>
<p>However, I think those in the college FA world have “done the math” and have realized that they would spend too much time looking over and investigating the various “waiver requests” that some would offer as to why the second parent isn’t working…displaced worker, no jobs available, young children in the home, disabled/special-needs child in the home, disabled grandparent in the home, other parent works very long hours/travels, etc. And, it would be too easy for the second parent to claim to be “starting a business” or having some “non/low income business” or some other such thing that schools have determined not to “go there.”</p>
<p>That said, when parents have posted that their child’s FA package contains a large gap in funding, I often do ask…well, can you take on a second job part-time, can your child earn some of the money, does your spouse work part-time, full-time or not at all, can either spouse work more hours/overtime.</p>
<p>I think families need to have the attitude that the PRIMARY source of paying for college resides with the student/family…and anything they get (grants, scholarships, etc) is a gift that should not be expected or demanded.</p>
<p>I do think it’s kind of gross when people post about cutting back their hours or similar in order to qualify for more aid. This often backfires when they find out the “more aid” is just more loans or a gap.</p>
<p>A note of caution for FAFSA manipulators. I had a student that told me less than a week after her older sister dropped out of college she received notice that her financial aid would be substantially less. Her family had not contacted FAFSA. They already knew!</p>