<p>not to mention expensive SAT prep courses</p>
<p>WHY?</p>
<p>my cost for SAT Prep was 0. Never read a book or did a practice test. Do those things really work? 2250 and he ‘only’ went to a public city HS. </p>
<p>Also if your 529s are in that bad shape, you had them invested too aggressively for money you needed in the short term.</p>
<p>What are people’s thoughts on students turning down schools like washu, northerwestern, gu( that are known to be stingy with their money ) and going to state schools due to the financial situation? go to state school now and private for grad school or something? lower matriculation?</p>
<p>We’ll find out the real dynamics come May 1 when the dust settles. But the big privates have lined up a huge wait list full of full-pays dying to get in – or so we are told…</p>
<p>I think what Franklin and Marshall is doing is unusual. Most private colleges of their stature seem to be increasing merit aid. The need to do this to enroll students who would otherwise choose a state school based on price. It’s a much better deal for these schools to give many kids $10K off then to give really needy kids large need based packages.</p>
<p>hmom, I think that F&M meets 100% of financial need. Speaking from personal experience, I know someone who attended because of their fantastic financial aid package. The student came from a single parent household, and the family had immigrated here at about the beginning of this student’s freshman year in HS. The student’s mother was waiting tables to support 2 children. If F&M did not meet 100% of need there is no way this student could attend, but she graduated and went on to graduate school. She is living the American dream today. Her sister commented to me how college is inexpensive if you have nothing in this country. This is not my experience, but the financial experience of 2 people who were given the opportunity that my middle class kids will probably not have. They did not graduate with large college debt. The sister went on to comment that for college purposes being poor is the one time it is to one’s advantage. She is saying this because they had private school options open to them without needing to borrow huge sums of money. She is now an adult and living a middle class life with a six figure income in a high cost of living area! This is her perspective on the subject now, not mine. Both of these sisters were given the opportunity to attend schools that my children could not access because of financial restraints.</p>
<p>Therefore, the cycle of poverty was effectively broken…is that what you’re saying NSM? I think that counts as a win and truly hope she is helping the rest of her family with a leg up as well so that the next generation will not need such assistance. (Not that the world doesn’t need good waitresses too!)</p>
<p>sk8mom, I am saying a couple of things. Yes, for these sisters the opportunities changed their lives and their children’s lives. They were offered amazing opportunity and they made the most of what was offered. They do help their mother who was waiting tables. They are also able to give a lot to their young children so that they will hopefully also have a bright future.</p>
<p>The other thing that I am saying is that the children above were blessed with wonderful opportunity, but many children of middle class America are being denied the same opporunities bc of the limitations of debt that they can reasonably take on and sometimes unreasonable expectations on the part of government and institutions as to how much they can pay in college costs. The kids I am describing above did not need to worry about huge debt and paying tuition. They did not need to take on huge debt to get their degrees at private schools. I think middle class kids should have similar opportunities offered to them. I am not talking about full rides, but I am talking about giving them a shot without having every last cent squeezed out of them and having them take on huge debt. Look, I don’t have a problem with a middle class student taking out 20k in loans for an undergraduate education. I do have a problem with the increasing expectations to borrow more and having that listed as need being met by institutions. I think it is wrong to tempt 18 y/o students who are adults, but have not paid their first electric bill yet, or had a full time job yet, to apply ridiculous sums of money for an 18 y/o dream.</p>
<p>^^ Eternal Icicle:“Because naming an economic situation after the person that inherited it, rather than the people that created it, seems just as unfair as high tuition costs.”</p>
<p>I know you and I have taken this way off topic, but I wanted to explain my interpretation of GoJimbo’s reference. Obama is the guy in charge at the time things are turning sour for middle America, and for many of us, he will continue to be increasingly viewed as the public face of our economic woes. In fact , that’s the job he took on. I think we all agree that things were souring prior to him arriving in the WH. But pointing to previous administrations is unseemly, whether done by Bush->Clintion, or Obama->Bush, and as months go by, and bailouts get distributed, it becomes a less and less valid ploy. So, I’ll make you a deal: As long as you willingly call it the “Bush Boom” if it gets better, then I am all for calling it the “Bush Bust” now. Obama either takes the blame or relinquishes the credit. But much as I am sure he would like to, he cannot have it both ways in the short term. </p>
<p>Here’s the 800 pound gorilla in the corner, as they say: Obama’s election coinicided with the reduction-by-half of most people’s savings and investments, as per this chart:
<a href=“http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#chart3:symbol=^dji;range=2y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined”>http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#chart3:symbol=^dji;range=2y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined</a></p>
<p>That’s what I am referring (and likely what GoJimbo meant) by the “Obama economy”. </p>
<p>//Apologies to OP and others for taking this down an off-topic cul de sac.</p>
<p>Northeastmom, I understand what you’re saying and their move is noble. What I’m saying is most colleges are doing just the opposite now. They are giving more merit aid and less need based because they need the money. There are only so may $45K packages they can give, so many prefer ‘discounting’ for higher income families who can pay most of the bill then to serving the needier right now.</p>
<p>Yes, but F&M is apparently decreasing merit aid (as I understand it, and doing what you are saying is unusual). Frankly, if one has a efc of say 45k per year, getting merit aid of 10 off of a sticker price between 40-50k will probably seal the deal, esp. if there is only one child to educate. Yes, the schools will need to accept less poor students just to stay afloat. If they can fill 5 seats by giving merit aid of 10k to 5 students who have efcs in the 30k+ range they are better off than filling one seat by giving one high need person a full ride and then looking to fill the 4 seats with families that can afford the full sticker price. Again, it is a broken system. Should private school be only for those who can afford 30k+ per year? When the middle class could not gain access the answer was “no”. When the low income family has trouble gaining acceptance as need blind admission decreases, or there is an increase in the admit/denies, I wonder if the answer will still be “no”, nobody is “entitled” to a private or 4 year college edcuation. Something to think about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NSM, I know and agree with what you’re saying. I don’t agree with the “equal footing at age 18” theory though because many low income kids haven’t had equal support or opportunities for those first 18 years, not will they be able to rely on their parents for any future support. The colleges and government clearly and openly state that they expect the parents to bear the burden of education costs and every FA model is based on that. It would be more reasonable if the costs were not so high and the income/asset data not based on a single year!</p>
<p>As taxpayers, I think the best option would be to consistently lobby for support of education budgets at the state and federal level and for accountability on how those dollars are being used, including reviews for tuition and room/board increases above a certain level.</p>
<p>Well, I can tell you that the 2 low income kids that I know, including the one who went to F&M, had a very educationally rich upbringing! One cannot make assumptions. Those 2 sisters went to a top rated public HS in NJ that is ranked higher than the HS my middle class children attend. Also, since their mother is musically gifted, these girls had access to the kind of music exposure that my own children never had. So, no, they did take a trip to your Europe while growing up (my kids were never in Europe with us either), and they did not have expensive meals out in restaurants, but educationally they were offered the same or greater opportunities than my middle class children. Bottom line is that not everyone from a low income family is being educated in a lousy school, and living in an inner city without access to fresh healthy food. Also, they had a willing supportive grandparent who cared for them after 3pm while mom worked. These children were not latch key kids, but had supervision, and these are all part of the reasons that they are successes today. What I describe here may not be the typical experience of low income children, but one cannot assume that they were not on equal footing with a middle class child.</p>
<p>Watch what they do, not what they say!</p>