<p>Scenario 3 (more or less) was in the news today: [Grieving</a> Father Struggles to Pay Dead Son’s Student Loans - ProPublica](<a href=“http://www.propublica.org/article/grieving-father-struggles-to-pay-dead-sons-student-loans]Grieving”>Grieving Father Struggles to Pay Dead Son's Student Loans — ProPublica)</p>
<p>I would agree that I don’t have it nearly as bad as some people. In fact, as I said, I’m not even mad about how I had it. Or even how nice my SIL had it. </p>
<p>I am mad that the system allows for it to be so different for so many different people. Life isn’t fair. I get that, that is part of the beauty of life. However, America is supposed to give people a fair opportunity (at least in the publicly funded sector). So it bothers me that the public colleges are priced so differently for so many because of the way we handle financial aid. </p>
<p>I find it odd that we try to quantify everyone’s financial standing and run it through some algorithm to determine how much you should pay for public college. Why not just charge everyone the same (I understand lower in-state tuition as the state taxpayers are flipping a decent size bill for that)? If we keep doing it the way we are doing it, their will always be group of people who are right above the cutoff who have to carry a very heavy burden. If we continue to move the cutoff higher and higher…this problem will continue. On top of that, this will cause the overall cost of educating everyone moving higher. </p>
<p>Just seems like a very unwise system to me.</p>
<p>If the parent takes out loans through PLUS, the loans are forgiven upon the parent or the student’s death. Private loans are a whole other story, and a life insurance policy would be in order if that were a fear. </p>
<p>There are a lot of kids who cannot go to a private college or go away to any college because a parent or both parents simply do not want to pay what it costs. Parent does not have to run away with a new partner to decide s/he doesn’t want to drop a quarter million in the next four years. Unless the family has the assets or is in an income category where this sort of expense is not an issue, that is a big decison to make in terms of life style, risks, debt, retirement planning, etc.</p>
<p>Why not charge everyone the same? Because at current taxpayer funding levels, many/most state universities cannot afford to operate without charging tuition at a level that puts higher education out of reach for low-income students. So to prevent complete catastrophe from ensuing, need-based aid is offered. I would note that in many cases, public colleges have very little need-based aid to provide. The vast majority of low-income students do not get free rides or anything close to it. Every study shows that poorer students graduate with more debt.</p>
<p>If you want to change that, join the growing chorus that believes our society must increase public education funding and reduce state public university tuition. Maybe that means higher taxes, less prisons, fewer wars. Everything is a choice, and right now, we’re choosing to invest less in higher education than we have in decades. The result is predictable.</p>
<p>I’m all for less prisons (by decriminalizing certain offenses, mainly drug related), no wars, and a tax plan that generates more tax revenue. And I realize that we are choosing to invest less as a society in higher education (at least in terms of a university’s budget). Also, I realize that these issues are intertwined because the university is just trying to fill its budget. </p>
<p>However, given the universe that universities currently live in, I would still say the way we handle financial aid is inefficient at best and immoral at worst. Why do kids in similar situations have such drastically different EFC’s? Why are colleges effectively punishing kids who work for too much money while in school?</p>
<p>Like I said before, with this tiered system of financial aid we have set up, the set of people right above the set of people who are given generous aid slowly turn into a set of people who now need aid (because they are asked to carry a higher burden). So it behooves them to try to appear to be in the set just below them (by not working, or by jumping through hoops). </p>
<p>I used my SIL and myself as an example. Because my parents made 10k more a year and I worked throughout high school and college, I was required to pay 60k more (in total) for my education then she was. In our case it was, if your parents make X and you work for Y, you owe 60k… If your parents make X-10 and you choose not to work, you owe 0. </p>
<p>Once again, I am not complaining about my situation per se. But am complaining that a system would be so blind to allow such a thing to happen to so many people. I mean just look at this board…all these people trying to figure out just how to fill out a piece of paper to get to that magic number. It just seems perfectly ridiculous to me (not of these people, they are doing what is required of them, but of the system that requires this of them).</p>
<p>Umm. I don’t think you know if it was just the $10K more your parents made over hers that made the difference. As I wrote before, a lot of colleges practice preferential packaging for any number of reasons. You can be paying more even your family makes $10K less than another student.</p>
<p>right, annoyedkid, but what is the solution?</p>
<p>We all know the system as it exists is wildly imperfect, that it supports a growing and overpaid administrative bulk, that pay for instruction is static even as pay for adminstrators rises.</p>
<p>We all know there is this spot in the middle class where education becomes very burdonsome in a way that was not entirely expected twenty years ago. But, what is the solution?</p>
<p>I like polarscribe’s idea. For the truly impoverished. But, until we reprioritize, as a country AND as a university, how we will spend our money? The smart students will do as you did and get the education where the most affordable and best academics intersect.</p>
<p>Nobody is disagreeing with you that the situation is difficult. It’s just that nobody believes that anyone receiving pell is “lucky.”</p>
<p>I hate to break it to ya but the difference in your two families financial situation was a probably lot more than 10k in income. There are a lot of other elements to your financial situation. I have a friend who gets a lot more financial aid than myself, even though we have a similar family income… but his family also has almost nothing in assets and 3 children in college… Little details make a huge difference. </p>
<p>You aren’t being punished for working in highschool. That’s a ridiculous way of looking at it. That’s like saying paying taxes are a punishment for working. No, actually, you’re privileged to get to work. People who aren’t working… aren’t making money. Earning money in HS means you get less financial aid, but it also means you have more money at your disposal. Besides, your first $6000 in earnings don’t count against you at all.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I have the world’s greatest solution but what if the University had required everyone to work on campus for 10-15 hours a week. Thereby filling up some of the non-academic positions the University has to spend on. Also, what if the University made a contract with its students to take a certain percentage of their income for the rest of their lives (or they could even cap it if they so choose). Or maybe, colleges could be geared more towards work/study…where maybe it takes you six years to get through school but you spend two of those years working to help pay for the University’s cost. Or some combination of these. </p>
<p>Anything to gear your schooling more towards who you are and what you can produce as opposed to how much money your parents have in a savings account as opposed to a 401k. Anything to try to keep college self-contained (i.e. you show up, give your best, and leave). That seems like a much more efficient (and fair) system to me. Rich or poor, or somewhere in between, the same is asked of you…and you don’t need to have money at the door to get in…but you are expected to contribute to your education in some manner.</p>
<p>At a lot schools, a lot of students on FA already have work-study as a part of their work-study. Federal work-study is capped at 2k/semester, where the dept. pays for 25% of their wages and the government pays for 75% of their wages. This is considered money towards the COA (so not an extra part-time job, but an expected part of the package). At a regional comprehensive, that work-study rate is 8.25/hr, not the 11 or 12 dollars professed by some private/elite schools.</p>
<p>Under that work-study rate, I need to work for 19.5 hours (the maximum allowed to me by the school) to get my full 2k award/semester, on top of nineteen hours of classes.</p>
<p>At my school, student workers are used in food services, as student/office assistants, in a variety of retail positions across campus, and as tutors. The reason that you can’t use students in more administrative roles is student privacy.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with a percentage of income- isn’t that basically a federal student loan payment? For the rest of one’s life? Oh, I certainly hope not. As I apply to more colleges for another four years, I certainly consider the aid that these schools (mostly private), are going to be able to offer me. If my family cannot afford to send me to one of the schools I get into, there are other, cheaper options. Maybe they won’t be what one ‘dreamed’ of… but if one wants to graduate loan-free or with minimal debt, there are ways to do so. It may not be optimal, but it’s certainly possible. It’s all a matter of choices, and unfortunately, college and choices are hard.</p>
<p>
I would not want to attend any of these schools you describe. Maybe I have enough money to attend without working and need that time to study for my really difficult time-consuming major. Or I have an outside job that pays more. Or something. </p>
<p>And who wants to be tithed to a school for life? You can give as an alumni if you wish, but forced payments for the rest of your life? Not to mention the bureaucratic nightmare involved in following all the alumni around and verifying now much money they make every year. </p>
<p>Some schools are very co-op geared (Northeastern, Drexel) and have 5 year options where you can work and earn money for tuition, but those are private schools. Having it as an option isn’t bad, but as a mainstreamed idea, it would make them difficult to compete with private schools on the traditional 4-year plan. </p>
<p>But you are on a roll - keep thinking.</p>
<p>IMO, it’s a big difference if the school is public or private. I believe that the public schools need to be more accessible and affordable for state residents. Private schools are a whole other story. Higher educaton has become a business, a big one as so many families are paying the bucks borrowed or otherwise obtained to send their children off for the sleep away college experience. Like any private venture, they can do as they please in terms of pricing, discounting, etc. They have a commodity that is desired and they can charge what the market will bear. As far as I am concerned, government funds should be pulled from these schools. Let them truly have to charge what they are worth without getting milk from the government teat. I think we would see a reduction in cost for a lot of private schools if that should happen; all but the most desired. It would be more the way it works for high schools: Private baording schools vs local priivates vs publics. I 'd like to see that model contined, not exactly but with more similarities.</p>
<p>Actually, there are a few schools that operate on a model somewhat like what AnnoyedKid suggests. They charge no tuition, and are highly competitive, but are also specialized.</p>
<p>Look at Webb Institute, where you can study Naval Architecture
or maybe Curtis Institute, for top musicians (more selective than Julliard, but not as well known outside music circles).
How about the Service Academies? not quite what he suggested, but along the same lines - they will educate you in exchange for 5 years of your life, the very real threat that there might not be another 5 years of your life.</p>
<p>The current model is no different than a sliding scale, but they’re taking more than just income into consideration. The formulas are not perfect, but anything of that nature hardly ever is.</p>
<p>One of my boys got a scholarship to SUNY Maritime, and if he joined the Corp of Credits there, he would ave made money going to school with no service obligation thereafter. </p>
<p>There was a time that Yale, I believe did have some payment system where one could pledge to pay a certain % of income for a lifetime.</p>
<p>Cooper Union is/was tuition free. Berea College and College of the Ozarks have a work for tuition plan in place. Antioch College has some deal going on right now, I beilieve wwith college costs. </p>
<p>One of my sons was not a top grade student, a B student in a challenging but not top of line curriculum at a prep school. Mid range SATs (averaging about 500 per). Yet he was offered a full tuition scholarship from a local Catholic school. If he lived at home, the commute is about 10 minutes. He could have taken a part time job, had a car and gone to school very inexpensively had he so chosen. And many of his friend and acquaintances took that option or a variant of it and there is a lively college community of these kids, all talented, bright students. </p>
<p>Two of mine were offered</p>
<p>This whole forum is very sad and kind of offensive. The government only gives pell grants to families who can’t afford high education for their child. That simple, enough said! Don’t get made because you have a small loan to take out made up of 10K lol that’s pocket change compared to other people, even with the full pell grant! You should be ranting to your parents about them not supporting you like they should. You should know that the average debt of college student is 30k, so you’re far below average, so be thankful and stop complaining! Someone please close this forum.</p>
<p>wrencher - you have missed the point when you state “The government only gives pell grants to families who can’t afford high education for their child.” How can the government possibly determine with any accuracy or consistency how much a family can afford? Besides, Pell Grants specifically are a ridiculously limited tool that doesn’t come close to paying tuition at most schools.</p>
<p>annoyedkid cited a specific example that he questioned and raises a valid point. A college education is outrageously expensive and there is no simple way to evaluate and equitably distribute available funds.</p>
<p>Well it can determine how much a family legally earns. Pell is distributed with FAFSA which is verified with IRS returns. Probably not a perfect system but it’s good enough for determining how much we pay in taxes.</p>
<p>Agree that Pell is ridiculously limited.</p>
<p>PELL is not intended to pay for room and board, that is, going away to school. What it does is pretty much pay for what a community college or local state school would cost. If it’s not enough, the student can borrow Stafford money. For those whose families make too much to qualify for PELL, the Staffords are available. </p>
<p>It is far from a perfect system, but it’s a decent enough base, IMO. I don’t think PELL should be given for private colleges. What many of them charge, it is truly a drop in that bucket. With some tuttions edging towards $50K, not that many students are impacted by PELL. A college truly wanting a PELL eligbile student isn’t likely to let a $5550 (at most) gap make that big of a difference. It just becoomes gravy for those school that lap it right up when putting together an aid package for those students. I 'd prefer to see community and local alternative be eligbile for more people.</p>
<p>For a family who is financially struggling, local college is even an issue. Mass transit is not so great in many areas of this country, and unlike high school with set begin and end times for a school day, college can be individual in each person’s schedule. Commuting is a big issue for some families. If the cars in the family are already needed, how is the student going to get to school and to part time work? Getting a student a car is not a inexpensive venture, and the cost of maintianing one is not cheap either.</p>
<p>cpt, we will have the transportation issue next year, with two sons attending our local college, which is about a 25-minute drive from our house. We have only two cars in the family, and with this economy we’re sure not buying another one. I think the guys are going to have to ride in together and just stick around campus all day. I can already imagine the kicking and screaming, lol. They’re not going to want to get up early, poor babies.</p>
<p>OHMomof2 - there is an enormous difference between how much a family legally earns and how much it is able to afford. It is absurd for the government to equate these two numbers in any meaningful sense.</p>
<p>A self-employed lawyer can pay himself a minimal salary and retain all earning in his corporation’s name. He can borrow against the company profits to maintain his lifestyle for years until after his children graduate from college (and qualify for generous financial aid).</p>
<p>At the other extreme, a blue-collar family who receives a large one-time windfall such as inheritance or life insurance proceeds, will have a huge income even if they remain deeply in debt after the windfall.</p>
<p>annoyedkid is right. The system is not fair. Unfortunately, no system of paying enormous tuitions will ever be fair. The question remains, what is the least unfair means of paying for college?</p>