What I once thought was a promising avenue appears less so. Can folks tell me whether I have an accurate understanding of the implications?
Scenario 1. Parents have an EFC of $30,000, and can and will pay “only” that. Student wants to go to School A, which would cost $55,000. After aid award there’s still an unmet need of $10,000. Student earns $15,000 during gap year, so s/he is all set. Gap year = good idea.
Scenario 2. Parents have an EFC of $30,000, but can only pay $15,000. Student wants to go to School B, which costs $22,000. Student needs to make up the $7,000 difference, but s/he won’t get it from the school, as the total cost is already lower than the EFC. Student earns $15,000 during gap year. Gap year = good idea.
Scenario 3. Parents have an EFC of $30,000, but can pay only $25,000. Student wants to go to School C, which costs $35,000. Student earns $15,000 during gap year, but student earnings drive up EFC to offset most/much of what was earned during the gap year. Gap year = bad idea.
Assume all of these scenarios involve admissions match-level schools, so no stacked merit-based aid. Even the “good idea” scenarios 1 and 2, strike me as ultimately bad ideas, because there will be little/no impact beyond freshman year, so how will the subsequent years be affordable?
I’m having a hard time envisioning many scenarios where a gap year primarily to earn money will have the desired outcome of making college more affordable. Is my thinking correct here, or am I missing something? Thanks.