<p>I think I should have named HarVandy instead, USSR University. That’s really what this is about, isn’t it? </p>
<p>Socialism.</p>
<p>I hope you learn about the fate of Socialism in your history classes. And about the freedom that our Constitution is supposed to protect. America is (not yet entirely, anyway) a Socialist country. Our Constitution was not designed to enable some to take from others and give to others, in the name of Equality. But of course, our mostly-liberal college professors and politicians seem to believe so. It’s much more fun to spend other people’s money. Or tell them how to spend it.</p>
<p>I’m sure you’ll continue to think so too, unless you choose a different career. Then you’ll understand how it feels. You’ll be on the other side of the fence.</p>
<p>It is our economic system that has made schools so expensive. If people weren’t willing to pay $50,000 for Vandy, tuition wouldn’t be that high. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t both praise and demonize the same system with the same argument.</p>
<p>kentuckymom, you’re obviously unhappy with higher education in this country (and indeed, with this country). Perhaps you should be looking elsewhere for schools, eh?</p>
<p>It is hardly socialism to allow wealthy people to donate their money to the school of their choice in order to provide financial aid for some students. You continue to ignore the fact that full-pay students are not paying for others, they are covering their own costs. For the most part, need-based aid (beyond that provided by government agencies) is provided by corporations and individuals making voluntary contributions.</p>
<p>The financing of public schools is a lot more ‘socialistic’ than private schools. Taxpayers, including those who have never gone to college, are paying the difference between cost of operation and tuition receipts.</p>
<p>Yet you want to tell people not to spend their money on donations to the colleges of their choice so that others who can’t afford the tuition can go there. </p>
<p>ROFL. I didn’t know they had sharks in Kentucky but you’ve really jumped it with this one.
I’m an (eventual) full pay parent and it doesn’t bother me one bit that my tuition in essence helps fund kids whose parents haven’t been as fortunate as dh / I have been (in part due to our own parents being able to afford top colleges for us and being able to graduate debt-free). Be glad you can give your kids the incredible advantage of a debt-free college education. Count your blessings that you are fortunate enough to be full pay, and move on. </p>
<p>Besides, it’s ugly behavior to resent other people the way you are. Who pays attention to OTHER people’s finances or what they pay for things? How gauche and low-class.</p>
<p>So while kentuckymom’s delivery is maybe a little heavy-handed, you have to admit its an interesting perspective. Regardless of all the sources of income a college has, the price charged to its customers is based on a determination of their ability to pay. There really isnt another product we buy where that’s the case. </p>
<p>In fact, consider the analogy that’s been floated on this thread, the purchase of an automobile. A car salesman often asks a customer “What do you do for a living?” in a veiled attempt to determine how much they can afford. Most people consider that a dubious tactic in that context.</p>
<p>KentuckyMother’s missive resonates quite a lot with me.</p>
<p>We pay full freight at an elite school for our child where he is among the minority of students - most are getting sizeable “scholarships” simply because they hail from families with lower income than ours. Call it whatever you want but it’s essentially rewarding poor performance. Why can’t these families pay the $48K that we will this coming year? Too stupid? Too lazy? Too selfish to pursue professions by which they can support their kids’ dreams but that they perhaps find too onerous? It is a free society. And 18 years is a long time to get your plan together for making the money it will take to send your kid to an expensive school.</p>
<p>Oh, and regarding the diversity angle to all of this - the notion that having an economic mix attending helps everyone’s education . . . the two roommates my son had freshman year on substantial financial aid both ended up on academic probabation. They certainly enjoyed themselves but also demonstrated the appropriate level of respect due to anything you get for free.</p>
<p>There are plenty of very useful, difficult professions that don’t pay very well. Teaching kindergarten, for example. Providing daycare. Being a cop. Social work. Being a stay-at-home mom.</p>
<p>But I guess the children of those people shouldn’t be allowed to go to an expensive school, hmmm?</p>
<p>^ There are certainly some very nice people who do those jobs, Owlice. But if they want their kids to go to extremely expensive colleges then perhaps they should set aside their “passions” and find occupations that will help their kids realize their own dreams.</p>
<p>It’s wonderful to want to help people. But then to expect the rest of the world to pay the way for your kid to attend a $200K college is preposterous. Many of us doing exactly that - i.e., paying the way of other kids at our son’s school - set aside really fun and altruistic careers in order to help our kid. Little did we realize ten years ago when my husband gave up a very comfortable tenured position to significantly boost his salary in the private sector that we would be severely penalized for doing what certainly felt to us like the responsible thing to do. After all, we chose to have a kid. We chose to have lofty educational aspirations for him. Wasn’t it our responsibility then to step up to the financial challenges those aspirations entailed?</p>
<p>We’re grateful he was accepted by his college. It’s prestigious and presumably it will give him a leg up in the world. But we feel like dolts to have made many professional decisions over the years that involved very long hours, risk, stress and darn little fun so that we could pay for it.</p>
<p>It is untrue that students who attend elite schools and receive need based scholarships are unqualified to be there. They are academically as qualified as the students who are fortunate to have parents who can pay the tuition.</p>
<p>It is unkind to insinuate that they don’t belong there or are not as smart as the wealthy students.</p>
<p>If a parent is uneasy paying full freight, then I suggest a cheaper school and/or applying to schools where the child might be eligible for merit awards. </p>
<p>Apparently, in spite of kentuckymom’s claim that her D’s stats are far superior to many here, the D was unable to achieve a merit award at Vanderbilt or some of the other elite schools that she applied to. I suspect that is what is really bothering the mom.</p>
<p>Please don’t misconstrue my post as claiming that students on FA lack the credentials to be at elite schools. I don’t think that at all. I do think that a substantial number of FA students don’t value their opportunity to the extent we would like them to. And that’s hardly surprising when its costing them and their parents nothing. </p>
<p>With all this money going into FA, has there ever been a study conducted anywhere to analyze just how well kids on significant FA perform academically? Just a straightforward correlation between amount of FA and GPA would be interesting.</p>
<p>One would think that all those earnest rich benefactors paying into the endowments would want some sort of report on outcomes beyond simply the marvelous news that the percentage of students on FA exceeds 50 percent.</p>
<p>You imply that that the FA kids are going there on someone else’s dime and don’t appreciate their opportunity as much as “your” child.</p>
<p>Did it ever occur to you that “your” child is also attending university on someone else’s dime - yours! Did they work any harder than the other student who brought home straight A’s and got good scores, many with no help from parents who may be uneducated or working 12 hours a day to put food on the table?</p>
<p>How do you figure that “your” student appreciates what they have more?</p>
<p>sewhappy, you claim that parents should do something that makes them money, but there are simply those who CAN’T. </p>
<p>My parents didn’t make it through high school. My dad is a disabled plumber and my mom a banker. They’ve tried to find high paying jobs but it is not POSSIBLE. So should I not go to school because my parents made mistakes 30 years ago? In what universe is that MY fault?</p>
<p>But again, like I said to the OP, you’re absolutely right. The poor should not have a shot at an excellent place for higher education because we were born poor. How dare we ask for the same oppurtunities as those who happened to be born rich!</p>
<p>icanplaybass - there are certainly students with substantial FA who are no doubt performing very well in college. I think that there are also many who are not. Why would my student who knows it is costing his parents virtually every dime of their accumulated wealth, endangering their retirment, and the education savings of their siblings to attend his school feel just a tad more motivated to attend class, work hard, make the utmost of the opportunity than students who are going essentially free. Hmmm. Call it human nature.</p>
<p>I think that in general what you don’t pay for, you don’t value.</p>
<p>And I think we are all entitled to some sort of objective analysis of what exactly is the psychological impact on these students when they and their families pay virtually nothing while other students have families payiing about half thier net income each year. To pretend there is no effect is preposterous.</p>
<p>In post # 29, sewhappy says
“Call it whatever you want but it’s essentially rewarding poor performance. Why can’t these families pay the $48K that we will this coming year? Too stupid? Too lazy? Too selfish to pursue professions by which they can support their kids’ dreams but that they perhaps find too onerous?”</p>
<p>This is an incredible statement, untrue and sadly repulsive. Harvard and many distinguished universities, both private and state, as a matter of policy practice meritocracy. They are looking for outstanding students who have made the most of the resources that were available to them. They admit students who they believe BELONG based on their achievements and their capacity to succeed at those schools and subsequently in life. The students who you see admitted from low-income families have earned their way through their accomplishments, their initiative, and their ability to deal with adversity. If these students did NOT belong, I guarantee you Harvard and other private/state schools would change their practices or criteria for admissions.</p>
<p>More importantly, these students succeed following graduation. They work hard, they graduate at the same rate as those who come from rich families, get hired into similar jobs and succeed at them. And you can’t point to any data set that indicates otherwise, can you? So, how are these institutions rewarding “poor performance”?</p>
<p>As for your resentment as to “Why can’t these families pay the $48K that we will this coming year? Too stupid? Too lazy? Too selfish to pursue professions by which they can support their kids’ dreams but that they perhaps find too onerous?”,
let me simply say:
– are you aware that the average family income in America is approx. $ 50 K?
–most of these families are hardworking families who are doing the best they can
–most parents work in occupations that are not high paying jobs like some on this thread (congrats to all who are doing well – may you continue to do well)
–they do however have the skills to be playing meaningful, even vital roles in society as teachers, cops, nurses, construction workers, restaurants etc
– they encourage their kids need to be educated because they realize that in the modern world education is the fuel for social mobility</p>
<p>In short, you choose to insult a vast majority of hardworking Americans because of your resentment at paying full freight because you can afford it for your kids education.</p>
<p>Rejoice at the choices your sons and daughters have. Celebrate their achievements.</p>
<p>Are ya kidding me? My S is going to a college where his Aunt has financially contributed to endowment for the past 20 years since she graduated from that same college. We require some FA because, all though I worked my butt off for years & planned, I instead had to take that money to support my two kids after my ex took off and became a “deadbeat dad”. So what category do we fit into? Is it my S’s fault his father turned out to be a loser? Why can’t my S benefit from the contributions his Aunt and so many other appreciative Vanderbilt alums made? By the way, my S took charge of his academic career in HS from day one and became one of three who were accepted from our school (over 12 applied). I brought my child up to appreciate everything he is given and would never think he’d slack off because we were helped out financially. He would be the opposite (having already travelled to Latin America with our church to build a home for poorer families). </p>
<p>You don’t get accepted unless you have the total academic package. THAT is what Vanderbilt tries to do to make a college student body (holistic approach) I also believe I read somewhere that they want to be able to have students choose those difficult low paying jobs (ie. teachers, nurses, etc) and not owe more money on student loans than their total annual salary. </p>
<p>Sewhappy (I think not), when your grandchildren are going to school and they don’t have qualified teachers from all walks of life to learn from … I bet you will be rethinking your position on all of this… or at least your D will be because you may not be around if you continue to lead such a negative, bitterly thinking, stressed life.</p>
<p>Here’s what I think. Elite education is a luxury and not a necessity for anyone. It is ridiculous to make families who are already paying very large percentages of their net income for their child’s education at elite institutions to also pay the tuition for students from less affluent families. Attending private college should not be regarded as an entitlement. </p>
<p>Moreover, this current system of FA is much like our tax code - easily circumvented by the unethical and clever. Hiding assets. Deferring income. Divorcing. Retiring early and consulting on the side, preferrably off shore. There are a zillion ways to appear much less affluent than you really are in order to beat “the system” and free load off the backs of the fools paying full freight. Like us.</p>
<p>And Dizziemom - I love to sew and it does make me very happy. Going to go back to work on my quilt right now.</p>
<p>And Brassring - I do rejoice in my child’s achievements and opportunities. And I celebrate his great good fortune in attending his college. Does that mean I must approve of every aspect of higher education in America?</p>
<p>I love my country just fine the way it is, thank you. Even more if the socialists would look “elsewhere” for a free country to ruin. Funny that the immigrants from the countries they have already ruined have been coming here by the thousands for decades. To escape the failures of the very system so many on this board seem to support. Go figure.
These Universities certainly are paying attention to the OTHER people’s finances! You really believe that there are those who don’t “resent” me for being successful? I WORKED my way through college. Thirty years ago, people didn’t feel entitled to such things. They earned them. Frankly, I consider it “low-class” for one to feel entitled to something that is not theirs.</p>