<p>So do u consider the top quintile of household income (everthing over 105K) to be the rich?</p>
<p>bgallo, your EFC may be high, but what did the net price calculators for the tippy-top schools say would be your COA? Schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford have exceptionally generous need-based aid, reaching up to family incomes of $180k a year. With a family income of $110k and assuming no complicating factors like owning a small business, COA for H etc etc would be around $10-15k a year. And given your high stats, you’d certainly have been a good candidate for big merit scholarships at other private colleges. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having gone to college 30 years ago and coming from a middle class family, I can assure you that oh yes it was like this 30 years ago. Not as insanely expensive but yes, parents were expected to contribute.</p>
<p>That would be upper income.</p>
<p>If you mean “rich” as a synonym for that, then yes. If you mean “rich” in terms of being able to buy politicians or large enough stakes in companies to influence their management, then that is a small subset of the upper income.</p>
<p>Obviously, the list price of many colleges is such that many upper income people may not be able to afford to pay list price, meaning that, in the absence of financial aid and scholarships, they would be expensive luxury goods limited to the upper end of the upper income (or those with substantial built-up wealth from before).</p>
<p>The colleges, of course, are just being shrewd capitalists in practicing price discrimination to get the maximum revenue from the customers who are able and willing to pay higher prices, while still getting some revenue from those whom they desire (since student academic credentials raises the college’s prestige and attracts more students) but cannot pay as much.</p>
<p>Michigan is an expensive school designed to cater to Michigan residents. Growing up near u of m, I can assure that there were plenty of instate students who couldn’t afford to go. They openly state that they have extremely limited funds for oos students because they do not cater to oos students (yet). I’m sorry if you’re upset that a STATE school tries to help those in the STATE as much as possible but that’s their mission.</p>
<p>bgallo–you have reciprocity with MN but you are also part of the Midwest exchange giving you inexpensive access to schools in about 8 states. You also live in a state with some of the lowest net costs for their instate tuition. There are several fine schools in ND/SD and no need to go elsewhere. Annual COA is $14,000. That is many thousands less than most states. State schools everywhere have limited merit/financial aid. They are already subsidized by tax payers in that state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My institution–not a state flagship–gives out $19,000 in need based aid for an undergraduate population of around 11,000 students. That’s really next to nothing given our student population. </p>
<p>Yet our tuition goes up every year. State support goes down most years. It’s not like we’re being ‘redistributionist’ here, at least not in the way you think. We give over 13 million dollars in merit aid, which is partially determined by ACT/SAT scores. Given that there is a very strong correlation between ACT/SAT score and income level, I am sure that the main beneficiaries of all this merit money are students from families in higher income brackets. </p>
<p>I know it helps to think that the problem with higher education costs rests on the backs of liberal ideologes who are trying to ruin the American dream of hard-working parents and encouraging laziness and entitledness amongst poor folks. It’s completely simplisitic to believe that a major cure-all to rising eduation costs is simply eliminating need based aid. </p>
<p>But stop using the financial aid policies of a handful of elite institutions with over 1 billion dollar in endowment as a proxy for the entirety of need based financial aid policies in higher education. For most institutions, especially those without very large endowments and of lesser selectivity, the need-based aid stinks. Dig deeper into common data sets, net price calculators, etc. if you really want to know about how need based aid works.</p>
<p>Also, the “pervasive redistributionist liberal mentality of college administrations today to stick it to the higher earning parents” is really more of a form of shrewd capitalist thinking in taking full advantage of the ability to use price discrimination to get maximum revenue out of willing customers.</p>
<p>I will be attending the University of Nebraska. They made me a very generous offer, and I am very blessed. When I filled out Yale’s aid calculator, they said we would pay $35,000/yr. The other roughly $15,000 would have been primarily loans, with only about $4,000 in grants.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to say I’m not blessed, to ask for pity, or anything like that. I just feel that people need to know that it isn’t just the economically disadvantaged that can’t afford college. </p>
<p>So maybe we are in the top income quintile, or whatever you want to call it. But we spend frugally: buying clothes at Goodwill, shopping at garage sales, buying generics whenever possible, driving modest cars, etc. While I feel blessed, I have never thought I was rich. But these blessings apparently come with the expectation that my dad should pay for my college, something his parents didn’t do for him, and something he doens’t feel he should have to do for me. So if it weren’t for my very generous offer from UNL, I would be stuck taking out loans just like disadvantaged people who can’t afford college.</p>
<p>I do not think anyone should be held back from attending Michigan, including myself, an admitted student from an upper middle class family that doesn’t have $50,000 plus travel, book, supplies, etc. to pay for college for myself and to subsidize the education of those “who can’t afford it.” I put that in quotations as my family also cannot afford it.</p>
<hr>
<p>As a Michigan resident and taxpayer, I can tell you quite bluntly that the fact that you are an admitted student from any family who does not live in Michigan is exactly why you should be subsidizing the education of those “who can’t afford it” at Michigan. If you wish to enjoy the fine taxpayer-supported university, you will have to pay the full fare. I am an upper middle class parent whose children would not get a dime of aid from UM. I sure as heck do not feel I should have to subsidize anyone from out of state.</p>
<p>I don’t get that kind of thinking either, kelsmom. If you want to go OOS to a place like Michigan, be prepared to pay (or look for merit aid elsewhere). Michigan,UVa,Cal, UCLA, Wm & Mary,etc. are attractive on their own-they have no need to heavily subsidize OOS students. Many kids would like to go to any school they want to-Ivies, Duke, WUSTL, etc. But if the money isn’t there, you go where you and your family can afford. That’s the way it is for all but the very wealthy. Have fun at Nebraska!</p>
<p>I understand where you are coming from. I was wrong to insinuate that I expect Michigan taxpayers to cover my educational expenses. Evidently a large number of very well-qualified and wealthy out-of-state students choose to attend your excellent university. It just didn’t make sense economically for me, so I’ve chosen a different route.</p>
<p>Thanks @sevmom, I’m sure I will!</p>
<p>I am sure you will enjoy Nebraska. Don’t worry about the places you can’t go, because you will have lots of opportunities. If you can graduate with minimal debt from your undergrad, you will have a great start post-college. And you may get to one of those schools you wish you could have attended … for grad school, when it can really make a difference.</p>