<p>"Is it fair to deprive them of things such as music lessons, summer programs, sports and vacations in order to pay an exorbitant amount for the older sibling's college? I think not."</p>
<p>That's why, in our family, the cutting back happened *before*we got to the first kid going to college stage.</p>
<p>Actually, in our case, the older one probably "suffered" the worst, since she went through the whole starving student stage with us, including living over a pizzeria in a four room apmt till she was eight, the endless parade of broken down used cars, no vacations, etc. I'd say the younger one had it easier, overall. But since both were used to not having any lifestyle "expectations" no one ever felt cheated.</p>
<p>Since someone suggested adding further perspective, such as buying much-used cars (yes that's an option we didn't choose, but then again we only had one car and the kids didn't have them, which a lot of kids wouldn't "stand for"). Yes, in a larger perspective, our very ability to save, the fact that we owned our home and built up equity in it, and that we had excellent health coverage and other fringes at my work -- and the fact that we were in fact healthy -- means that we were very lucky compared to the average family. The point of my comparison was that a family making quite a bit more than we were -- $160K, even if that's only a recent level -- ought to be able to find a way to provide more than $1000 a month for the education of their first child. And if they can't, or they aren't willing to -- and there aren't a lot of special circumstances to account for it -- then they shouldn't be surprised if they can't afford to buy the college education at Niemann Marcus rather than at Macy's or Wal-Mart. Just read the subject title of this thread. The OP shouldn't be in shock that Niemann Marcus might not be ready to give him a $30,000 annual discount.</p>
<p>garland,
We did "cut back" to save for college and for retirement. The only real "extravagances" for our publicly schooled children were a few enrichment activities. No private schools, no expensive vacations, no big houses. My point is that we are now penalized for planning ahead. What I take from our experience is that if you can't afford to save the total COA, you might as well save nothing, because it's people who saved and built up a little (but not enough) that get the worst deal in financial aid (IMO).</p>
<p>" but consider that many parents still have younger children at home. Is it fair to deprive them of things such as music lessons, summer programs, sports and vacations in order to pay an exorbitant amount for the older sibling's college?"</p>
<p>I think it's important to realize that things like summer programs, music lessons, sports and vacations are luxuries.</p>
<p>NSM, Luxuries...yes. But these things are the very luxuries that helped to make the oldest child what he/she is. It is a way to round out the public school experience. I don't put them into the same category as designer clothing, cruises and expensive cars. They are not even in the same category as private K-12 schooling. Also it should be noted that the expense involved in these activities is nowhere near the cost of a private college education.</p>
<p>Maybe the question is whether to spend money on enrichment during the early years or to save it all for college. But, if you save it, you better make sure you save the whole enchilada.</p>
<p>ellemenope - Have you ever read the "Tightwadder's Gazette"? That was a book that changed our lives. We baked our own bread, rinsed out plastic bags, and made enough lifestyle changes to save money on teeny tiny incomes with two children. Now we're a little too lazy for our own good and not so frugal - but some frugal practices remain. For anyone out there trying to figure out how to save some money for college - Hold off on having your kids get their driver's licenses! You'll save about $3000 a year in lowered insurance costs, less gas, no accidents. Multiple that times 3 years of high school, that's $9000 towards college costs.</p>
<p>If the EFC calculators on the web are relatively accurate, I'm not sure why people should be shocked at their EFC when they get the real thing. If people are interested in planning ahead and doing a little research, there is plenty of information on college costs, the formulas used for need-based financial aid, and how much parents might want to save for their kids' college education (if the parents plan on paying for college). From my point of view none of this should be a big surpise to people. Although it is understandable that people would wish that college were cheaper or that there were more financial aid available for upper-middle class families, that is not the world we live in.</p>
<p>Anxiousmom: No car = + $9000 - lots of worry about their safety. It's a win-win for parents!</p>
<p>From where should additional aid for middle-class families come? From the government? That merely means more taxes will be collected, largely from middle class families. You can pay your money directly to the college, or run it through the federal middleman, who will take a percentage for administration, i.e. federal bureaucrats. From the college? Where is it supposed to get the money? By raising fees? That sounds like a vicious cycle. From weathy donors? Colleges already rattle the cages of rich alumni. </p>
<p>Money isn't made from thin air. The only way middle class families are going to pay for college is by making a point of saving. We can't expect others to pick up the tab. There are no "others" out there.</p>
<p>It's interesting how the idea of fairness differs from Europe and Canada as I said in a previous post. There college is largely paid for by the government. Yes, everyone is paying the cost but then the playing field is leveled and smart kids go to better schools - family wealth is not a major factor. America used to have the most social mobility but somehow this doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar screen anymore. And there are "others" out there. According to an article in the NYTimes yesterday heads of hedge funds make $500 million dollars a year. Check out how many people actually make over 1 million dollars a year - about 1% of the population. Get rid of a few recent tax cuts and cuts to the inheritance tax and we're talking real money.</p>
<p>One more thing. Comparing education to Neiman-Marcus vs. Macy's is ignoring the bigger picture. Who gets to go to the top schools affects all of us. Having the smartest, best people, regardless of how wealthy, thrifty, generous, etc. their parents are, become the future leaders of our society, our doctors, judges, college professors is what our countries past and future greatness depends on. Education shouldn't be lumped in with other consumer goods.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There college is largely paid for by the government. Yes, everyone is paying the cost but then the playing field is leveled and smart kids go to better schools - family wealth is not a major factor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We could always try the (former) Russian method where the government decides who will be the future doctors and who will be the future ditch diggers with government paid tuition -- but somehow I think we are looking for more choice. And with choice comes responsibility -- for the bills!</p>
<p>RE: "Money isn't made from thin air. The only way middle class families are going to pay for college is by making a point of saving. We can't expect others to pick up the tab. There are no "others" out there."</p>
<p>I don't argue with this. My peeve is now aimed at the high cost of tuition + R&B which at anything other than in-state U is 33 to 43K/yr. This isn't the cost of the school to actually cover operating expenses. It's an amount which brings in enough money to allow discounts to need based students. Again another hidden tax. I'm not wealthy, maybe if my cost was 22K without aid I wouldn't complain.</p>
<p>Maybe schools should get need based aid from the government instead of the middle class tuition paying parents.</p>
<p>"I don't argue with this. My peeve is now aimed at the high cost of tuition + R&B which at anything other than in-state U is 33 to 43K/yr. This isn't the cost of the school to actually cover operating expenses. It's an amount which brings in enough money to allow discounts to need based students. Again another hidden tax. I'm not wealthy, maybe if my cost was 22K without aid I wouldn't complain."</p>
<p>Everything that I have read indicates that even what full pay students pay does not cover the costs of their college education.</p>
<p>Most colleges are NOT able to cover the documented financial need of all students. This is true even for very expensive colleges as well as probably most public universities. </p>
<p>As for having the government pick up the tab, are you willing to pay sky high taxes for that? In France, for instance, universities are free to all who qualify for admission (based on tests). Taxes are sky high. </p>
<p>Personally, I would gladly pay higher taxes for free universities, universal health care and a uniformly excellent public educational system that truly meets everyone's needs, not just those who can afford to live in well off school districts. Unfortunately, most people don't feel the same way that I do.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, even if tuition at places like Harvard and Columbia was $22,000 a year, that doesn't mean that every smart kid who wanted to go there could. There still would be space limitations and plenty of smart, middle income and low income students would still end up going to much lower ranked colleges. </p>
<p>Indeed, if the price were to drop, that might attract even more acpplications from outstanding middle and lower class students, and that would mean rejections for some of the students who are getting acceptances now. As competitive as those colleges are now, they'd be even more competitive if they were cheaper.</p>
<p>tuition does not go toward subsidizing need based grants.
R & B at most privates and publics is similar in cost
If you are looking for a school where tuition is less than 30K you can find it.
[quote]
From Swarthmore bulletin</p>
<p>To qualify for need-based aid does not require being poor. The average family income of aided Swarthmore students this year is slightly higher than $88,000; there were twice as many aided families earning $80,000 or more (55 percent of the total) as there were earning $40,000 or less (22 percent of the pool). Depending on the number of children in college, a family earning as much as $150,000 may qualify for need-based aid at Swarthmore. (Also influencing the need determination are such factors as the cost of living in the students geographical area and medical care and elder care expenses.) The notion that our tuition and financial aid policies squeeze out all middle-income families just does not hold up when you see where our aid dollars are going, says Jim Bock '90, Swarthmore's dean of admissions and financial aid.</p>
<p>The percentage of the student body receiving aid has remained remarkably stable over recent years, hovering at around 50 percent. That does not mean the cost of the program has likewise held steady. The College devoted $12.7 million to scholarships in the 1999-2000 academic year; the figure was $16.1 million for 2004-2005, a 27 percent increase in 5 years. The funds for financial aid are drawn from income generated by the College's endowment. As a result, the families of full-paying students are not subsidizing financial aid, notes Suzanne Welsh, vice president for finance and treasurer. (In fact, because the College expends more than $60,000 a year per student, even full-pay students receive a substantial subsidy from Swarthmore's endowment.) Although more than one-half of the money for scholarships comes from endowments restricted by donors to financial aid, the rest is from unrestricted endowment.