<p>Sorry, not being snarky. I mean it. So many folks here think things are unfair (and I am not saying that I don’t think there are unfair things about financial aid), but when I suggest that they take it to those who actually could do something about it, my motives are questioned. If you don’t think it’s fair, then SAY SOMETHING to someone who might be able to do something about it. That’s how change happens. Will your voice make a difference? I don’t know if it will, but I do know that nothing changes if no one tries to make change happen.</p>
<p>Kelsmom - my apologies to you. I think I misread your post as “snarky”. I think things are so far from the way they should be now that I don’t even know what congress could do. I think we need to go to a European style system of higher education where it’s almost free for everyone. How we get there from here? What would I say to my congresspeople? I think perhaps by griping on forums such as this perhaps we might get people a little angry or awaken consciousness that it doesn’t have to be like this.</p>
<p>I work in financial aid, and I don’t know the answer! What I do know, though, is that the future of financial aid worries me. There are people who would like to see all loans (including Perkins loans) be unsubsidized loans. The reality is that so many students who are not Pell-eligible are also not able to pay for school without borrowing … and the only help for this group is often the sub & Perkins loans. So even the small benefit of subsidized student loans could be gone.</p>
<p>I think I just totally misread your post. I thought the tone was “quit yer b-ing” and “tell it to the marines” if you remember that old saying. I didn’t take it like, actually talk to your congresspeople. </p>
<p>Your job sounds like those people who answer the phone at the insurance companies telling people that their coverage is being dropped when they get sick.</p>
<p>Actually, the reality is that most of what I do is really, really awesome. It’s wonderful to help students. I deleted my last post because I realized after writing it that I was focusing on the bad parts of my job … when MOST of my job is really cool. I truly like what I do. :)</p>
<p>
That is true if there is no gain on the assets during that time … more realistically the asset base will probably remain about even or slightly move ahead while the student is in college.</p>
<p>
Not if your money is sitting in any kind of safe investment, which is what is recommended when the student is in school. Money markets and cds are paying less than 1% in many cases, sometimes way less.</p>
<p>Kelsmom,</p>
<p>What is the status of Obama’s proposed FAFSA simplification proposals? It looks like one of these directly addresses amazon’s initial gripe:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Report</a> Outlines Impact of Obama’s FAFSA Simplification Proposals](<a href=“http://www.nasfaa.org/publications/2009/gfafsa091109.html]Report”>http://www.nasfaa.org/publications/2009/gfafsa091109.html)</p>
<p>This appears to still be in the early stages. I did see a proposed FAFSA that incorporated the simplified system, but changes like these require a bunch of steps before they are actually put into place … and they usually change quite a bit in the process. </p>
<p>I honestly don’t know what will happen in the next couple years. I do think that there will be fewer questions, though, and this is not necessarily going to make people happy. The idea is that federal aid will geared toward assisting the poorest, and then there will be some unsub loan money available for everyone else. The thing is, asking fewer questions means that schools that award their own money will probably want to find out more about a family’s finances in order to award their money - so I suspect schools will have supplemental questions, which means the questions don’t really “go away,” and the process might get more confusing as a result. Also, while it seems great to just ask a couple questions … which would basically be family income, size, and asset level … the need to verify these answers would be very important. This is where the direct link with the IRS comes in. A direct dump of tax info onto the FAFSA seems to be something those who favor the Obama-simplification would like to see. I wonder, though, what the feds will want from non tax filers in terms of info. Will they just accept a non filer’s word that they aren’t required to file? I don’t know where all of this will lead.</p>
<p>Kelsmom - it’s good to have an expert on this thread. That’s exactly my problem - they’ll be going after money outside of home and retirement accounts. The government really creates so many incentives to have excess money in homes.</p>
<p>
If they hook FAFSA into the IRS database, my guess is that they will require anyone who wants Federal FA to file, regardless of whether they need to or not. If you are not required to file, filing would be close to trivial and not much of a burden.</p>
<p>Hooking into the IRS raising some interesting privacy issues, it will be interesting to see how they get resolved.</p>
<p>How do you verify assets now?</p>
<p>I’d like to point out something. The ony way to know if a student is applying to schools where he/she stands a chance of getting the aid needed (or close,) is to do the research. Schools discuss this in their printed and web info. As you check a number of schools, you recognize a pattern of buzz phrases, the statistics re: the % of stdents receiving aid and the average $ package. “Will help you find the resources you need” can mean only that they will steer you to loans. “Guarantee to meet full need” is far stronger, but still depends on how they do the math. In between are schools that talk about striving to meet as much need as they can. It needs to be researched for each school of interest.</p>
<p>In some cases, there is merit aid. It still needs to be researched. I ran into a few colleges that happily talk about merit opportunities. On further checking, many of those awards were for particular majors, students from particular areas, etc. Also, if the applicant is not among the strongest students the college wants to have- if the student is a marginal admit- he or she may be at the back of the line for merit. It’s very important to know you are applying to schools at which you can standout. Not just dreaming of being a student at a standout school.</p>
<p>Congress can maybe only change FAFSA…they can’t do anything about CSS Profile or how privates will give aid.</p>
<p>NO ONE HAS a right to college education, much less a private college education. Those who want a pricey education should want to pay for it or accept less expensive alternatives. It’s certainly not fellow taxpayers’ responsibility to pick up the tap for a child’s pricey private school. OMG</p>
<p>I think we need to go to a European style system of higher education where it’s almost free for everyone.</p>
<p>I don’t think so…</p>
<p>The European system tends to “track” kids early to determine who is “college eligible” and only a limited number can go to college. So, to say it’s free for everyone is not really true.</p>
<p>Also, the European system is more socialistic with higher tax rates…so nothing is free. LOL…The European system would probably tax the heck out what you’ve been earning all these years and this lump sum retirement.</p>
<p>Besides, people who don’t get retirements or lump sums should not be subsidizing those who do.</p>
<p>Here it is. That’s my answer. Why our country becomes more and more for the top 2% of wealthy people. So in Europe, some people are tracked at an early age and get a free education. These people are chosen because they are smart. All public schools are pretty decent so in that sense the playing field is more level. You are saying that the only people who deserve to go to a pricy private school are those who can pay for it. With the exception of a handful of public colleges, all of the best schools - the Ivy’s, MIT, Stanford, are pricy private schools. So only people who have an extra $200,000 per child should even apply because financial aid is almost always dodgey unless you’re very poor (in which case you probably won’t go to a public school which can give you the kind of education you need to get in) or an urm.</p>
<p>I would have been very happy to pay higher taxes for the security of knowing that no one (not just myself) will ever go without healthcare and will have a reasonably comfortable retirement and be able to go to a top college if they are smart enough to deserve it.</p>
<p>I think someone who is brilliant has a right to go to the best school that they could get into without saddling themselves with $200,000 worth of loans. The same for law school and medical school. I don’t want all the future professionals chosen from a small pool of children of the wealthy. It’s not good for anyone but the wealthy.</p>
<p>And by-the-way, we paid for my daughter’s education to a pricy private college. And, people should subsidize people with large home equity (pure luck in many cases) or large pensions but not people with large savings? That’s my original point.</p>
<p>Before I get flamed, are second homes or rental homes looked at by financial aid?</p>
<p>Yes, they are assets. The sellable value minue any mortage is the value and the rent (if rental) is “income”).</p>
<p>Your theory is that only pricey private schools are the best schools and the only schools that give a great education. That is the fallacy of your thinking for many people and there are dozens of threads discussing this topic if you want to join the fray.</p>
<p>99.99% of people given a choice between a top 20 (US News & World Report) school, all other things being equal, would go there. Perhaps other schools give a good education but almost everyone on college confidential would prefer to go to one of those schools if it were the same price as the alternatives. I know many stellar kids who got into one of those schools and didn’t go because of the money. I’m just calling for an alternative to our current byzantine system for determining who has access to the very best schools - admissions-wise and financially.</p>
<p>For example, someone just told me that only 1 first-year law student at a particular public university got a summer internship and both of his parents are lawyers and he had a connection. That is how you get a job when you get out of law school. The big law firms are recruiting from pricey, private law schools which charge $50,000 a year for tuition alone.</p>
<p>amazon, I suppose you also believe that private high schools should be priced so that everyone can afford them, not just the wealthy. By your logic, it isn’t fair that families who can afford to send their children to pricey private high schools should get to enjoy the benefits of the good educations they provide since families with lower incomes can’t afford to send their kids there. I guess it’s also unfair that homes in the nicer parts of town are expensive and unaffordable by lower income families. Any why should poorer folks have to drive Corollas when the rich neighbors get to drive a Lexus? Gimme a break.</p>
<p>Before I get flamed, are second homes or rental homes looked at by financial aid?</p>
<p>Heck yes…that is a big ole asset. </p>
<p>*I think someone who is brilliant has a right to go to the best school that they could get into without saddling themselves with $200,000 worth of loans. *</p>
<p>If your child is so brilliant than there are good colleges that will give him a free or near free education. </p>
<p>*For example, someone just told me that only 1 first-year law student at a particular public university got a summer internship and both of his parents are lawyers and he had a connection. *</p>
<p>You’re very wrong to think that only those who go to elite schools have awesome opportunities. And, besides, even if your example were true, that doesn’t say anything about going to a less expensive undergrad. You can go to an inexpensive state school, do well, and then go to a top med or law school. BTW…Our flagship has a tier 1 law school. Those kids do get internships. </p>
<p>I have several attorneys in my family…all but one earns a 7 figure income…4 are partners for large law firms in LA and Chicago. NOT ONE went to an ivy/elite undergrad or law school. They went to undergrads like Purdue, UIUC, CSUF, UCI, and law schools like LMU, Valparaiso, Fordham, and UCDavis. </p>
<p>And if the European schools were so awesome, int’ls would be clamoring to go to school there…instead, they all want to come HERE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really?? Where is the research that supports this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are a lot of very fine schools out there who would welcome a “brilliant” student with some significant merit aid…and even full rides. You just can’t be wedded to the idea that the Ivies are the ONLY act in the country.</p>
<p>There are PLENTY of brilliant students who did not receive significant aid at the Ivies and chose to go elsewhere for the merit aid awards. There are students who look further down the road than undergrad and strive for acceptance to grad programs at top schools…students who have very little debt for undergrad.</p>
<p>You know…sometimes the opportunities offered to “brilliant students” at lesser known schools far exceed the ones at those better known schools…think of things like professor contact, research opportunities (especially if the brilliant student goes to a school that focuses on undergrad studies), internship ops, study abroad…I could go on and on.</p>