Hypothetical WWYD

Parent Cafe
61

<p>"Hypothetical parents have 2 kids. K2 is 2 years behind K1. Assume Ivy in question is Cornell. Assume it is the only Ivy K1 is interested in (hypothetically doesn’t want to go as far away as all the others). Other choices are 1 in-state LAC which seems highly regarded, and several privates which would be likely to offer merit aid based on test scores. Full ride anywhere is unlikely based on gpa. "</p>

<p>I assumed the LAC was private, as Sylvan doesnt say its public, and was offering that its instate for non-financial reasons. I suppose that I should have read it as instate public LAC.</p>

<p>In any case its certainly not a state flagship (in VA some call W&M a flagship, but from the USNWR ranking this doesn’t seem to be a school like W&M) Presumably a State LAC does not have an honors college within it, as do many state flagships and directional universities.</p>

<p>It would really be much easier if Sylvan were in position to name the schools, but I accept the need for confidentiality.</p>

<p>Frankly the choices other than Cornell sound kind of weak. Though that suggests to me that mistakes were made in the application process. My DD was probably a weaker candidate than this (she was WLed at WUSTL and probably had no chance at Cornell) and she got merit aid at RPI and Case. Sounds like the student described here could get merit aid at some new ivy or just below privates, and could probably get into a state flagship. Certainly for someone into prestige to apply only to (presumably) mediocre privates, and (sounds like) mediocre state school, PLUS CORNELL, is just an odd application list.</p>

<p>I would almost recommend Cornell, as it may be worth the difference, and it sounds like they can afford it by working more. But I am reluctant to do so without really understanding the logic behind the original app list. Does the applicant want a small school? A religious school? cause Cornell is neither, by a long shot.</p>

<p>Edit:If the public is the one I think it is, I have heard good things about it here, though I am personally unfamiliar with it. Its MUCH smaller than Cornell though, really a different educational experience, I think. I cannot recommend either way, but I think it would be worth to do a Cornell vs X thread here (without going into details on the money, but including things like preferred major, etc) and see what people say.</p>

62

<p>

If everyone in the top 5% of American families in financial terms gave up the jobs and investments that enabled them to have those salaries, it follows logically that America’s standing in the global economy would fall and there would be no more people to provide financial aid. I’m afraid I don’t see your logic.</p>

<p>While you are right that the families I spoke of in my original post do rank statistically in the highest percentiles of American earners, I feel that a different standard often needs to be applied when we are talking about college admissions. First of all, the majority of Americans who send their children to college and are willing and able to contribute anything (even the cost of in-state tuition) to that education have above average financial pictures. So the lowest percentile of elite college applicants are probably going to have finances that rank slightly above the “average” American. Second, many applicants/acceptees at the elite schools come from areas with the highest COL in the nation. $250k income is actually quite average in many parts of the NY metro region, for example. True, those families are making a choice to live there. But being a teacher, nurse, what have you, that earns less money than, say, an attorney, is also a choice. Each of these choices may have very valid underlying reasons. What troubles me is that the “system” seems to reward one of those choices more than the other. I really do value the sacrifices of those who take public service type jobs that pay far less than what they could command in the private sector, so I’m not sure that I disagree with the way the system works, but it frustrates me nonetheless.</p>

<p>I think the bigger issue here is a systemic failure in the way that we fund private universities in America. Maybe the problem is the concept of a private university in and of itself. But hardly anyone seems happy with the way things work right now. The uber-wealthy (I’m talking families with seven-figure annual incomes) may not mind shelling out $50k+ a year, and maybe there are a few very low-income students who hit the jackpot with an HYP acceptance and fabulous non-loan financial aid that they didn’t have to negotiate too hard for who are satisfied with the way the process works, but the rest of us certainly aren’t, regardless of where we come from, where we or our children attend school, or how much money we have. I don’t have all the answers. It certainly doesn’t seem that our politicians or college presidents have many answers at all. I just hope we can work together to avoid the crisis that I fear is looming.</p>

63

<p>“If everyone in the top 5% of American families in financial terms gave up the jobs and investments that enabled them to have those salaries, it follows logically that America’s standing in the global economy would fall and there would be no more people to provide financial aid. I’m afraid I don’t see your logic.”</p>

<p>most of the people in those jobs do not have students attending a top private university in any given year. and there is almost certainly a line of people NOT in those jobs who also do not have students attending a top university who would glady take the place of those who do.</p>

<p>I think you misread the comment though. It is not a proposal for what an entire social class should do. It is a suggestion suggested to YOU, who are complaining. A suggestion made to help you think through the implications, and to realize that it is in fact HARDER to finance education at lower incomes than at higher ones. The FAFSA tax on marginal incomes is not only lower than 100%. It combined with income taxes is lower than 100%. That means that folks with, say, 150k a year incomes (in the same metros) have LOWER standards of living than folks with 250k AFTER paying for the same colleges, and including FA. </p>

<p>The whining from folks richer than us, gets tiresome.</p>

64

<p>I didn’t take clg’s comments as whining. Our family, for example, is a military family. My husband’s retirement bumps us up quite a bit. However, after 27 years of moving (we moved nine times the first 13 years we were married) and the expenses involved with that, plus my having to start over with a job every time we moved, we have finally been in one place for more than ten years. With jumping from job to job to job, I have very little saved for retirement. Now that we are in a little higher bracket, we are trying to play catch-up.</p>

<p>We have nice life. We as a family have made lots of sacrifices. I don’t want anyone to feel sorry for us. However, when the average cost of college X is $26,000 and for full pay it is $56,000 it doesn’t sit quite right. Fortunately, neither kid has a big desire to attend a top-dollar school.</p>

<p>And when people make flip remarks about giving it all up, I might suggest that everyone else put 25 years in the military because that is at least part of what bumps our income. Rant over.</p>

65

<p>there are lots of reasons different folks have different incomes. Sometimes it choices, sometimes its the luck of different skills and abilities and personality traits, and sometimes its pure luck. </p>

<p>I suppose if you discount those latter two factors, you may believe that while its easier to pay for college with an income of 250k than with an income of 150k, it SHOULD be, because you are more deserving, because you worked harder, made wiser choices, sacrificed more, etc. That is a potentially valid position, and one I am sure many people hold. </p>

<p>However it is distinct from asserting that it is more difficult to pay for college with a 250k income than with a 150k income. Which is, as a general rule, false. And that is what flip remarks about lowering your income are meant to get at, AFAICT. If you think you will be better off AFTER FAFSA aid and college pay, than think of what it would be like if you downshifted.</p>

66

<p>and yes, folks with 250k salaries may have them because they had situations in life that made it hard to save. The same can happen to folks with 150k, or 100k, or 60k salaries.</p>

<p>FAFSA doesnt judge our life stories. The resources to do THAT would be pretty demanding. So it only judges income and assets. But my sense is that there are as many life stories that would justify more aid at the lower income levels as at the higher ones.</p>

67

<p>Here is a real situation…family cashed in all savings and spent the last three years sailing around the world on their yacht. Still have house and yacht, but when applying for FA, showed 0 income for last 3 years and no savings, so, guess what, full ride financial aid. Bear in mind this family was upper income and will probably be upper income again. It just chafes me that their kid (and this is a close relation and I love them but…) got full ride and mine got nothing. We have saved our butt off to pay for college instead of sailing around the world…</p>

68

<p>I will suggest that to DH, megpmom. lol</p>