<p>I’ve got University of Alabama and University of New Mexico–think free range.</p>
<p>This thread is “off the hook!”</p>
<p>Well since I’ve had a beautiful day cozying up with the IDOC and the Business/Farm Supplement, this thread seems to call out to me. </p>
<p>My son is doing a research project on poverty in the US and one of the stories he found talked about how some are committing crimes so that they are incarcerated because it is an alternative to facing the cost of health care etc as they get older. One of the statistics was that is cost $70K/yr to keep someone incarcerated. There was a similar article in the book “what the dog saw” which compared the cost of care for the homeless alcoholics vs providing subsidised housing and support.</p>
<p>It got me thinking, how many more prospective students could be helped with financial aid if the whole financial aid process was simplified combined with a cessation of the over the top marketing campaigns and glossy literature was eliminated. If that money was poured back into actually educating students rather than employing agencies such as the College Board and the like wouldn’t that be better for everyone? That way Financial Aid officers can actually spend time working with students rather than sifting through piles of papers and files.</p>
<p>I know there are scenarios for which the current system works just fine but doesn’t the good of the many outweigh the good of the few?</p>
<p>Huh. Now the sexy dating ad is gone. Maybe it was just some sort of kink in the system. I dunno. Strange doings.</p>
<p>Yeah- there are sometimes kinks in systems…even on CC.</p>
<p>I’m going to jump in here. I don’t think I am playing the victim. In my state the leading state schools are raising tuition while handing out more free rides to various categories of students. So we don’t fit into any of the categories, and while middle class we are a single income family (by choice). My daughter will graduate with $26,000 in debt. So, low income students or first in family students, or minority students can’t borrow the money??
I don’t like handing out aide by membership in a category.</p>
<p>Am just catching up-- and I still have lots more entertaining reading ahead of me-- but just a small point of correction to rocket4louise-</p>
<p>Re: post # 375 -You did think something I posted earlier today was off topic- but in fact it was not- it was on topic. I clarified this for you and you politely corrected yourself, for which I am appreciative (as I believe I said). What others seem to be doing here is pointing out (directly and indirectly) the outrageous hypocracy of some posters. IMO that isn’t off topic. It is part of their explanation and is perfectly fine to be discussed in the thread. Besides, many do not wish to discuss this stuff back-channel. JMO</p>
<p>jym-i thought berryberry’s comment was wholly unnecessary…and the conversation quickly ended…so no harm, no foul :D</p>
<p>I haven’t finished catching up yet, rocket-- did you spell it out yet for him and all?? You said you wanted to be the one! I am so hoping you did. It might be off topic, and may seem like it is coming from left field some other direction, but thats how some like it. eh?</p>
<p>Using phrases such as “That’s the rub” and “off the hook” could have unintended consequences around some posters who claim to be ready, willing and able.</p>
<p>*** and rocket-- I appreciate your attempt to stop some erroneous conversations about drinking and driving, but, sadly, some of that chatter continued, despite your best efforts. You might want to try again to discipline, and you might need to be a little firmer-- as some seem to be gluttons for punishment ;)</p>
<p>and lol at post # 428! Touche.</p>
<p>Is it just me, or does this thread seem to have gone say, 65% kinky/61% freaky lately?</p>
<p>Or is that just a PA/Wheaton/Chicago moving average?</p>
<p>Dingle, would you call that an aberrant or normal trend line?</p>
<p>Good catch, clueless. But sometimes before people move or age significantly, someone takes a screenshot of their original information. Don’t you just love modern day technology?</p>
<p>This question has been asked several times with no responses.</p>
<p>Why is there a mindset that middle class students should take out loans for college, and those whose income is lower should not have to take out loans? I don’t see any difference as both will have equal chances for employment post college.</p>
<p>Exactly!! I raised this question a few posts up. My state is considering cutting back “promise” schorlarships and the papers and airwaves are flooded with kids talking about how their dream to go to college will be ended if they can’t get a free ride. Amazing. That is what Pell grants are for. Low income kids can get loans just like my middle class kids.
Yes, would someone please explain the difference.</p>
<p>Low income students do have loans in their packages as far as I know. The exceptions to that would be at the “no loan” schools, and some of them have changed their policies this year.</p>
<p>I do not have a problem with student loans for all. I do have a problem with asking students to take out more and more student loans to fund education, especially before they have held a full time job and started paying bills to understand the ramifications of those loans on their lives post graduation.</p>
<p>It is simply not true that low income students go, essentially, for free.</p>
<p>If the stats from Inside Higher Ed are true, the average amount borrowed for families making $ 0-49,999 is $2390 (parent borrowing) and $3900.00 (student borrowing), while that for families making $49,999-99,999 is $2480 (parent borrowing) and $4980 (student borrowing). </p>
<p>If you family makes over $100,000, the amount of borrowing is a less for students ($3710) but a bit more for parents ($3070.00). However, the amount from parent income and savings applied to higher education is more significant–11,410 if you make over $100,000 but $4340 for families between $49,999 and $99,999 and $2680 for the lowest group.</p>
<p>What’s interesing here is that parents from the lowest income group are taking out $2390, while the highest group, which is at least double the amount of income, are taking out only $680 more per year. </p>
<p>So low income parents are taking on a more significant burden of debt in proportion to their income. </p>
<p>But this information does not say what type of institution these families are choosing. Are the middle or higher income families choosing more expensive schools? </p>
<p>So although it may seem as though middle income students are taking on more debt than lower income students–a point that many may find unfair–it could also be that middle income students are choosing more expensive institutions.</p>
<p>Maybe there is a chance for a little common ground here, berryberry61. </p>
<p>Being Valentines Day and all I’m not going to try to tie you up or beat on ya. Instead I’ll try to be an OK cupid for day - maybe a good one if I can find enough arrows in my sling. 
</p>
<p>Hey, I’m no masochist. I don’t want to be bound and gagged anymore than you do. And I’d get no joy from giving you any pain either, so let’s just play nice. Deal?</p>
<p>Since you are from Pennsylvania and work at a private school maybe you’ve heard of Sewickley Academy. Even if not, it’ll do as an example. It’s a well-heeled suburban private day school in the higher SES suburban town of Sewickley, PA , 12 miles from Pittsburgh, with a senior class around 77-79. The public district it is located in (Quaker Valley) is in the top 2% of public schools and graduates about 160 kids and sends a decent percentage to the elite schools we talk about most here on cc. (I think that is “similar” to stats you’ve posted about your independent school and the public district where its located ) </p>
<p>But my point is that Sewickley sends a lot more of its kids to these elite schools. That is one major advantage that upper-middle SES kids have in getting into these schools. Can we at least agree that the stroking and hands-on care these kids get at such a school is better prep than a kid from the wrong side of the SES tracks gets? Better prep yields better admissions results? </p>
<p>The difference in guidance and support has to account for part of the substantial difference in these kids admissions results. I think you’ve posted something similar. Some of us are saying is that FA policies at some (not very many) colleges help even out the playing field for the house-maids and gardeners of these Sewickley folks.</p>
<p>I know this is a baby-step toward understanding each other better, and I’ll try to post some more later, but I have to spend some time with the wife today. I don’t want her to think the internet has become some sort of “conversation mistress” lol (although sometimes I think she doesn’t mind me finding another way to satisfy my needs. She doesn’t have much interest in this stuff. In fact, she thinks its kinda weird. ;)).</p>
<p>I read through many posts on this thread and nowhere did I read about any of the service academies.(maybe I missed them) There your kid will get a first rate education, meet first rate kids, have outstanding experiences, and graduate without having paid any tuition!</p>
<p>Sewickley is a good example, and I’m sure Berry is familiar with it since he lives in the area. Thanks, curm. I actually know a prominent alum from there who became an independent school Chaplain for many years.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, I confess I haven’t gone through this thread, but your reference to Sewickley Academy piqued my interest - I have known some truly outstanding kids from there. I would agree with you that the GCs at the school should be given some credit for their superior placement results.</p>
<p>Again, not knowing the whole context of this thread, but focusing primarily on your comments, my main concern is the importance of “evening out” the playing field. I just know of too many instances (mainly from my early life overseas) where this was ultimately achieved by pulling down the haves and propping up the well connected in the have-not population; the net result being the haves were pulled down, the rank-and-file have-nots stayed more or less the same, and the ones who really didn’t warrant a hand because they already had the connections made out.</p>