<p>“Very few people who make 300k will ever be able to save 1-2 million after taxes plus they only make that after a number of years in the work force.”</p>
<p>No is expected to save up the full amount of the COA for his/her children.
You are expected to pay from savings, current income, future income, and loans, (if you so desire to take out a PLUS Loan). You may pay by each semester as in two large payments or you could divide it up and make 10 monthly installment payments to the colleges like so many parents do. To assume you must save that amount before they even start attending is rather ridiculous in my view.</p>
<p>Cpt: The thing that gets me is that the cost of these schools has risen to a point where they have to be excluding more and more of the population. Can you try it from this angle? That, with 30,000 applications for 2,000 slots at an Ivy (give or take,) most kids are going to be excluded for reasons other than their ability to pay. Of course, after the admits are notified, the real family heartache begins. I agree with most of your post.</p>
<p>But, I think the isue starts with supply and demand. Too many kids apply to the Ivies and the top LACs. It grants these schools a position in which they can do as they wish- both in terms of their academic standards for admisison and the rest of the show. So many families are willing to find the money, somehow, somewhere, that, in effect, the schools are shielded by this “demand.” As someone posted, if your kid got into HYP, wouldn’t you find a way? (Me, too, btw.)</p>
<p>At the other end, too many under-prepared kids get so focused on college. I agree that many cc’s and state schools offer little more than seats in classes, accumulation of credits and a value-less degree. The effect is that it steers bright, motivated kids away from these schools- and right toward the better, more expensive options.</p>
<p>I think the issue has to be finding places for the less prepared kids and encouraging many of them away from 2 or four year state programs until they have been prepared, in some way- done the reading, had the analytical experiences, improved research and writing skills, etc. In CA, some of this is served at the city colleges. The state can be most selective at the UCs, slightly less so at the Cal States and open admission to many at the cc level.</p>
<p>I am very grateful for all of you tax payers because the federal government just gave my kid a $44K grant towards her next two years of education. Now some of you can really be bitter. The feds feel it is a good investment and the only way to get specialists in primary care, since those who can afford med school/PA/RNP programs without assistance are mostly aiming toward higher paying specialites. They need people more interested in patients and paychecks, so they make it possible for those folk to get the degree. Seems like those who have money want to make more of it… then again, the grant committee did not ask questions about financial need when considering which students would receive the grants. One of her classmates has millionaire parents (brags about it, gets new car every year) and also applied for the grant.</p>
<p>This always was completely hypothetical and about the problems with the FA system. Once again can one of you please explain how things are going to work when tuition is 80-100k in 10-15 years. At that point the system will collapse. Do you really think it will work to have a class almost entirely made up of the nearly full FA students and people making say over a million. So the children of the educated upper middle class/affluent professionals of America who pay most of the taxes and vote are going to be excluded and you think that’s going to work. Keep in mind these very people make up most of the alums from the top 20 schools. Very, very few of their graduates are truly rich.</p>
<p>It wasn’t that many decades ago when you didn’t GO to college if you couldn’t afford college. If you were “destined” for college you went to one that your parents (or you) could afford. There wasn’t the tuition discounting in the guise of scholarships etc. Granted fed aid might have been a greater percentage of total cost but the reality is that college costs cannot continue to rise as fast as they have unless colleges are willing to continue to discount tuition. At some point some colleges will simply get the bright idea to lower the total cost, stop the discounting and that will be the beginning of cost stabilization. I don’t think it is all that far off. The only way to get more bodies in college is to make it more available to more kids and the population of college age kids is on the verge of a slight decline I believe. Whether we want to believe it or not higher education is a commodity and any commodity is price sensitive. If college become competitive – for example if the community colleges are chock a block full – then the four year insitutions will also need to compete to get those kids to enroll and skip the 2 year transfer plan. </p>
<p>There are also the aspirational aspects. There is a point where even the most aspirational families will simply not budge on an amount they are willing to pay. There’s a reason that uber luxury cars don’t manufacture thousands…there simply aren’t thousands of people willing to pay the price. That is not to say that the most expensive colleges won’t fill their class but they may not have the luxury of being picky about who they fill that class with. This value syndrome is pretty normal…most commodities have a supply and demand curve. No one is “eliminated” from anything…people simply make choices about what they are willing to pay for something…if the price becomes too high many people will walk away. While the brand image might be an important quality for a 17 year old most adults understand the cost/value equation after decades if buyig high ticket items…education is really not “that” mystical and it’s still the parents that in many, many cases support the purchase. This is a pretty simplified view, but I don’t believe it is far fetched.</p>
<p>I agree with quite a bit of what you have to say. Although it’s not likely that you’ll convince anybody who holds a contrary opinion, the chances are zero unless they read your arguments. And (almost) nobody will read them if you don’t use paragraphs.</p>
<p>Sorry, but the truth is the truth. I’m willing to skim your posts (because you seem to have some valid points). But it’s pretty darn annoying.</p>
<p>Use some frigging paragraphs. Your parents and your neighbors worked hard to pay for your high school education so that you could someday function as an adult. It’s time for you to deliver.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about the sarcasm comment, and I’m certainly not connecting “YOUR” dots. But I think we’re in agreement here. People do make choices that reflect in their incomes. And I agree that we get to choose in America. We’ve certainly enjoyed our ability to make choices.</p>
<p>So, do you have a contrary point to make? I only ask because it seems to be a rather snarky way to agree … Or did I misread?</p>
Some of the most happy, well-paid people that I know (all friends of mine):</p>
<p>[ul]
[<em>]a carpenter (retired in his early 40’s)
[</em>]a plumber (see “Fiddler on the Room” to understand the “Aha!” moment when you walk into his house)
[<em>]a concrete guy (seasonal work, crushing income)
[</em>]a high-tech entrepreneur (works night and day, decade after decade, earns big and loves it)
[<em>]an independent insurance salesman (his hobby is learning about expensive wines; at home each night by 5:00).
[</em>]an electrician (currently in the process of buying up hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of acres in the Pacific northwest).
[/ul]</p>
<p>All of these folks would be considered crushingly rich by CC regulars, and they would be used for target practice if they were so silly as to post here. Four of these folks have college degrees, one of them barely.</p>
<p>Only one (the high-tech guy) uses his degree. Only one (the high-tech guy) has a serious degree from a tough school. Only one (the high tech guy) has put in massive hours for decades (but he loves it!). By the way, the high-tech guy isn’t me. I don’t know where he gets his energy from.</p>
<p>As for the others, none of them could be said to be full-time workers over their careers. Some have missing decades. All of them are party people, if you know what I mean.</p>
<p>By the way, lookingforward - You mentioned that other thread, where the topic of plumbers surfaced. I believe that someone suggested that their family had lots of plumbers, and that $50k/year was about all that could be expected. I don’t remember who that was; possibly it was you, but I’m not sure.</p>
<p>But whoever it was, all I can say is that they’re doing it wrong. And there’s no question about it, none whatsoever.</p>
<p>It’s been my privilege to know quite a few plumbers, and not one of them would roll out of bed for a trivial $50k/year - that would be unthinkable. That’s so ridiculously far below their normal income that it’s ludicrous to even talk about it. Any plumber with a clue needs a wheelbarrow to haul away the cash. That’s just the way it is.</p>
<p>Naw, wasn’t me. I was the one who said, if everyone was a plumber, there’d be too much competition to earn 150k. But, we do joke our girls should be floor refinishers- here, they rack it up, then spend all winter in FL. (And, no long training period.)</p>
<p>^^^^ Yes, good point. There are so many well-paying jobs out there, it’s just amazing. And lots of them aren’t even full-time/full-year work.</p>
<p>You’re making me laugh when I recall that other thread. Of course, the point isn’t that we should all be plumbers, but rather that there are needs to be filled, and that people will pay to fill them. Some fuzzy thinker in that other thread took the literalist approach, and wondered what my solution would be if everyone were to become a plumber, wages dropped, and other very important needs went unfilled (duhhh … sounds like gold rush time to me). It’s painful to watch an adult struggling with a basic thought, but back in the college days, there were certainly lots of folks who couldn’t hack Econ 101 (“Intro to Common Sense”). They didn’t all disappear.</p>
<p>For whatever reason, education for the vast majority of us requires a social component. Books have been readily available for a long time, and many people are able to learn from books without much teaching or mentoring, but most of us need a teacher and a group of other students who are all in it together. Whenever someone figures out how to properly integrate the social component into online education, then you will see the current education system go into shock.</p>
<p>Online classes can be incredible, but I’m not entirely sure that people would be willing to pay the same tuition for an online university as for one in a traditional class room environment.</p>
<p>That of course is the point. I would agree from my own educational experience that living in a frat house and hanging out for four years is a hell of a lot more fun, but is it worth 60k/year. When it cost 5k/year there was less pressure but today there must be a closer relationship between the cost and the value of the degree.</p>
<p>What people are really paying for at an elite college is mostly the grouping of thousands of other smart/accomplished young people not the quality of education which is nearly identical at all the top 30 schools for the typical(non-genius) student. In truth the biggest difference between the top 15 and the 50-60th ranked schools is mostly the student body not the quality of teaching or the facilities.</p>
<p>“Once again can one of you please explain how things are going to work when tuition is 80-100k in 10-15 years.” </p>
<p>Smaller privates will dot the American landscape with “For Sale” signs on them.
There will be no buyers! We will have “Ghost Colleges”, like “Ghost Towns”.
Priced themselves right out of the market place! </p>
<p>Public universities will become very selective & difficult to gain acceptance.
Perhaps getting a college education will not be the goal for high school graduates.</p>
<p>What will happen when the majority of the current students or relatively recent graduates realize that they themselves will not be able to afford to send their children to the schools if they are admitted? What will happen to alumni giving? College tuition though a different issue is just like entitlement spending in that the cost can not continue to out pace inflation and wage growth. It’s not really about exactly how fair or unfair the current FA system is but rather that it is a poor policy that is doomed to fail and very soon.</p>
<p>We could always find token plumbers making it big, but I also know plenty plumbers who could barely afford the American dream (owning a home, 2 kids, 2 cars, 2 TVs). There are people who are millionaires without a college degree (a degree certainly wouldn’t guarantee it either), but how many do we know in real life. Any of those examples are just anecdotic. If it’s so easy to do well being a plumber, electrician, sanding floor, you would see a lot more people doing it.
This is the most rediculous remark I have ever read.</p>
<p>The problem is probably furthest along for law schools where the majority of students are really turned into indentured servants with no realistic chance of ever getting a reasonable return on the cost of law school. </p>
<p>Medical school is not as bad but Obamacare or whatever ends up happening will untimately lead to the same situation where a new physician burdened with hundreds of thousands in debt will end up with a poor return on their educational investment.</p>
<p>Immediately someone will answer that it’s not all about money which is true but ultimately the system will collapse if a student/family is expected to spend 250-500k being educated but ends up earning too little to pay off the loans and live a decent life. </p>
<p>I have attached an article that points out that law school situation where the schools are purposely dishonest with their published employment data and average first year incomes. The typical undergrad degree is not much different since almost none of them even from the top ten schools qualifies the graduate for a job that would allow them to pay off the 250k their education really costs. This is why the current FA system so distorts the process just like the third party payors in healthcare. If you only pay half the cost(typical student) the 5% tuition increase is only 2.5%. The only solution is to end the FA system for all but lower income familes. Then when everyone is forced to address the real costs then and only then will there be a chance for realistic reform such as the top schools greatly expanding their class size,sharing the teaching costs, utilizing modern video technology, and allowing for a large number of transfers from lower priced state schools/cc after two years. But ultimately no real changes will occur until the educated public(alums) becomes engaged/angry and forces the colleges to address these issues. Until then it will just be business as usual where the primary purpose of the top colleges is to feed the educational beast with ever more money.</p>
(duhhh … sounds like gold rush time to me). It’s painful to watch an adult struggling with a basic thought, but back in the college days, there were certainly lots of folks who couldn’t hack Econ 101 (“Intro to Common Sense”). They didn’t all disappear.</p>