<p>good point blue
A University of Washington survey revealed that 11.6 percent of the 2004 freshman class came from families earning less than $25,000 a year, while 37 percent belonged to families making $75,000 or more....
But Washington ranks a lowly 49th out of 50 states in the proportion of its 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in public four-year institutions, Lazowska added.
<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/242389_access27.html%5B/url%5D">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/242389_access27.html</a></p>
<p>Probably if a study were done looking at it realistically, about half the insitutions of higher learning in the US should be shut down, not to mention how people finance their attendance at them. Seriously.</p>
<p>Why is it that the well off think it is so natural and even character building for the poor and middle class to pay more and more for education and other services. Any reduction in their own take home income is viewed as an abomination and a national disaster. Policy choices were different in the 50's and 60' in this country. Some of us remember those days and think America was in many ways a better society when students were much more able to work their way through college. College tutitions have increased faster than inflation, minimum and student type wages have increased less than inflation. The intererst rates in loan are up. It is vastly harder to work your way through college than in prior years. If one can stop the knee jerk resort to conservative prevailing wisdom is this the way we should go in America?</p>
<p>BTW if Sarap is right and 10K at 6.5% for 20 years is $1625 per yr and we use the 40k figure then we have $6500 per 20 yrs at 6.5%. This is a significant amount for someone makings $35 to 40k gross. Should we assume all recent grads are investment bankers or CEO's at 100k per year?</p>
<p>I am familiar with the self serving economic arguments of the well off. As Bush admitted to his first Treasury Secretary O'Neil, both of his major tax cuts were directed toward the upper income folks. I disagree with this policy of tax cuts for the wealthy and service cuts (including subsidized student loans) for the less well off</p>
<p>I can't figure out why the well off would not realize that their lives would stil be fine, as they were in the 50's, if their marginal tax rate was 10to 20% higher. Surely they are not strapped for a reasonable amount of luxuries, retirement savings and necessities. If they are strapped, , they need to seriously take up their problems with delayed gratification, as they would lecture other folks to do.</p>
<p>It's so easy to say to a kid, "oh, you don't have a lot of money? Live at home, and commute to college" forgetting that, as marite mentioned, not all kids are even close enough to do so, and for those that are, there are expenses even with commuting.</p>
<p>It's so easy to say to a kid "need more money for college? Get a job" even though these same kids are not always the best prepared and need every minute for studying (not to mention the commuting time involved in the option just above."</p>
<p>It's so easy to say, "save $3,000 this summer, you can work 13 weeks at $10/hr" even though the best job in that kid's neighborhood that he can get may only pay minimum wage (and, O, sorry we haven't raised it in 10 years. We did that as a favor to preserve this low wage job for you...) And, that same summer job earings need to make a family contribution, pay commuting expenses and so forth.</p>
<p>I could go on.</p>
<p>It is easy to paint rosy scenarios. It is much harder to do them in real life.</p>
<p>Marite and Sarap, shouldn't your examples not assume a minimum of federal financial aid? Pell gants and SEOG can account for as much as $7,050 -amd more with the DRA. </p>
<p>Also, work study income is not subject to social secutity taxes. Obviously, the above does not apply to high middle income families.</p>
<p>First, you save by living at home and commuting. Most people in Washington live within one hour of a four year state school not to mention the numerous CC's. And you work part-time. I did it and so did the rest of my family. A decent summer job should net you $3,000 too. Where there is some will there is a way. If you can't get into Udub seattle you can go to Bothell or Tacoma which have close to open enrollment for the last two years after CC. But if you can't pull a 3.5 in CC maybe you should consider other lines of education/work anyway.</p>
<p>"If you can't get into Udub seattle you can go to Bothell or Tacoma which have close to open enrollment for the last two years after CC. But if you can't pull a 3.5 in CC maybe you should consider other lines of education/work anyway."</p>
<p>Interesting, given the income based stratification of higher ed these days. It appears this is exactly what lower income students are doing. Of course, guess what companies recruit at Tacoma? At Bothell? Not your fortune 500. And guess how many grads of those schools go on to post graduate work? Guess how many make a decent living after graduating?</p>
<p>Yea, Barrons, it's so easy for a Harvard alum to tell others less fortunate to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, but then make sure those bootstraps are very tiny.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>No, I am not asssuming financial aid, or merit aid of any kind, so that it is easier to calculate whether middle class parents of average kids can afford to send their kids to the state school--these are the majority of families that attend our state university system.</p>
<p>an hour commute when gas is minimum $3. gal?
as I mentioned on another board, public transportation also isnt good. For my daughter to take a city bus to her summer school class, that takes 15 min by car, she would have to take 3 seperate buses from our house and it would take 1 & 1/2 hours according to schedule.
I don't believe Tacoma or Bothell campuses have dorms do they?
I think that a residential college experience is very valuable- so much so that we borrowed money to subsidize it .
I think that expereicne is probably even more valuable for students who are first generation college, than it is for students who have always expected to go to college.
Yes students can get a 4 year degree from many sorts of schools, but should we continuing to segregate students by income for their education?</p>
<p>Barrons, where on earth do you get the idea that community college is easier than a four-year college? The UW transfers the grades from Bellevue Community College straight over--they're considered equivalent. So should students who have "only" a 3.5 GPA after two years of a four-year college consider dropping out?</p>
<p>Marite, I understand that it may easier to calculate.</p>
<p>Financial Aid
Students receiving financial aid: 71%
Average aid package
In-State: $10,744</p>
<p>The figure is confirmed by this statement: "The University of Massachusetts Amherst operates one of the most comprehensive financial aid programs of any public university. Last year, Financial Aid Services assisted 14,250 students in receiving a total of more than $140 million in financial aid from federal, state, corporate and institutional sources."</p>
<p>Regarding Pell grantees, here is a source from an article that might also help in the quest to shed light on the UMASS affordabiliy:</p>
<p>"At UMass-Amherst over the last five years, on average 17 percent of incoming undergrads were eligible for Pell Grants - not bad for a major public university these days, but still less than the 25 percent average in the latter half of the 1990s. The poorest students, those from families unable to contribute anything toward their education, constituted 4 percent of this year's freshmen class, half the number a decade ago."</p>
<p>Printer friendly at <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/12/11/is_umass_pricing_out_kids_like_joe_drury?mode=PF%5B/url%5D">http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/12/11/is_umass_pricing_out_kids_like_joe_drury?mode=PF</a></p>
<p>Thanks, Xiggi. Here is an excerpt from the article:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pell Grants cover just 36 percent of the average cost of a public four-year college, a 6 percent decline since 2001-2002. At the state level, spending on grants and scholarships has declined by 22 percent over the past five years, forcing students to borrow more money. A recent report from the College Board warned that the combination of rising tuition and reduced financial assistance is making it more difficult for even the most qualified low-income students to finance their education. High-scoring students from the highest socioeconomic quartile are graduating from college at more than double the rate of high-scoring students at the lowest end of the income spectrum.</p>
<p>The price tag at UMass-Amherst ($9,278 for yearly tuition and fees plus $6,517 for room and board) deters many low-income students from even applying, guidance counselors say. In Revere, for example, Ruth Davis, the district director of guidance, says high school graduates prefer to commute from home to UMass-Boston ($5,241 for tuition and fees), UMass-Lowell ($8,166), and Salem State ($5,588). The more affordable state schools and community colleges are crucial, Davis says, because more than half of high school students in Revere are from low-income families.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that the $140million in finaid includes graduate fellowships. These should be deducted from the finaid available to undergraduates.</p>
<p>Xiggi, </p>
<p>Yup, a pretty clear message at UMass (and most other flagship state unis): The poorer families just can't afford it. Others can rationalize all day about commutes, extra part time jobs, summer earnings and so forth. Obviously, for these folks, it does not add up.</p>
<p>Economic stratification. It isn't pretty. It isn't good. But it is happening.</p>
<p>This will all sound pretty random...but these are my thoughts....</p>
<ol>
<li>My parents and theirs were all poor manual laborers. Together they amassed a combined estate, now residing with my only surving parent, worth about 1.5 million. My parent is not financially savvy and certainly not very trusting of any estate planning help. Because of this, if the inheritance tax is allowed to resume, a large chunk of the estate will be lost. From my perspective -- and I and my family have struggled financially for decades -- I dislike the inheritance tax. I don't consider my family to be "wealthy"...we are just a bunch of poor people who struggled, saved and who lack the financial savvy to protect the money from being passed to the next generation of struggling family members. My family will need every bit of this money to survive, because of a variety of family circumstances that have taken their toll over the years.</li>
<li>Not every kid gets what he needs from CC...some need the being away from home to learn to be independent. Others need special services.</li>
<li>Not every kid gets what he needs from a state school. In some states, state schools are hard to get into, offer little support, and are the wrong environment for the kids. In my home state, only the very bright or those who can function well in a large classroom environment can appropriately attend state schools. Thus, the problem develops...for my child to get what he needs, we need to go private school, which costs so much more.</li>
</ol>
<p>Bottom line in the thread (to me) is that there are so many circumstances outside of the box...it's hard to generalize.</p>
<p>nmd:</p>
<p>you make some excellent points, but I'm still unclear as to why a tax donor state (such as California) should subsidize the education of tax-reciever states. If the good citizens of Massachusetts and Washington want to raise the price of their flagship Unis, why should the federal government (aka tax donor states) subsidize that increase? (btw: the COA for the UCs in excess of $20k.)</p>
<p>sage: are you suggesting that the Govt (with a big G) ought be funding college expenses to any and every private school?</p>
<p>blue,</p>
<p>you raise a good point, but interestingly, MA at least is also a tax donor state. Rather than frame it in such terms, I suspect you'd find that the affordability problem is rather universal across most states. If one views lending for college education as a common good, one where the "state" sees a return (in higher citizen productivity etc...) from its investment, then the issue becomes a bit different, no?</p>
<p>Sage, if you consider 1/3 of the estate to be a "large chunk" OK. I'd still call a million bucks to be a pretty good deal. Yea, call yourself a "poor struggling" person after you inherit a cool million. </p>
<p>You lack financial savvy and you expect sympathy? Or you think a cut in the estate tax is only fair 'cause some folks don't want to do their homeworK?</p>
<p>bluebayou:</p>
<p>I used MA as an example because this is where I live, but I could just as easily used CA as an example. As NMD says, MA is a "tax donor state."</p>
<p>The biggest difference perhaps between CA and other states is that in decades past, CA had the foresight to build an excellent system of higher education throughout the state. I do not know whether it is easy to commute to one of the many UC , CC or state U campuses, but it just is not possible in many other states so students have to accept the total COA, not just tuition and fees.</p>
<p>From an earlier post by texdad:</p>
<p>*Count me as a generally happy lawyer. It beats many other ways of making a living imho. </p>
<p>I am self employed. In private practice in a rather specialized field with my brother in law. We are sort of like well paid social workers. It is pretty rewarding.</p>
<p>I don't work very long hours. Roughly 40 hrs a week or less. Go in late on days I don't have hearings. No weekends in the office, but maybe a few hours Sunday night at home, if I have a hearing on Monday morning.*</p>
<p>The reason I don't happily support higer marginal income tax rates is because I choose not to subsidize other's lifestyle choices.</p>
<p>You didn't like working as an employee, you didn't like corporate work. You don't want to work long hours. That's fine. But if we choose differently, if we choose to work long hours, to move in search of promotion or a better job, explain to me why I should give more of my money to the government so your family can keep more of your gross pay, or your child will have more college choices, or so you can keep working less than 40 hrs a week doing what you love?</p>
<p>For the record I am not suggesting that everyone who is struggling with paying for their child's education is in that position because of personal choices. But I do feel a huge sense of entitlement out there...and lots of pointed fingers, some of which I think ought to be pointed in another direction.</p>
<p>Sage44: any decent estate lawyer will charge you a few thousand dollars to set up an estate plan that will protect that million-and-a-half dollars so that no inheritance tax is paid. It's well worth doing.</p>
<p>NewMass--the closest I got to going to Harvard was dating a girl who had a sister there. I went to a good public school. It did not cost my lower income parents a dime. One summer I worked on commercial roofing chopping and melting tar blocks in the hot NJ summer. That smell stays on you for days. I washed cars, waited tables, did painting, loaded 200,000 pounds of boxes a week and other odd jobs to have enough to go.</p>
<p>Over the years I have taken a few classes at CC's (including North Seattle CC) for various reasons. I would not consider the grading or workload very difficult.</p>
<p>Is going to a UW branch the dream choice--probably not. But it's a college and local companies do recruit there. When I was 21 I would have loved to be driving a Porsche but I had a VW budget and I was glad to have that.</p>