<p>Wow, so basically the creator of this thread is saying that the rich should stay with the rich, and the poor should have to lower themselves to community college. Way to be a narrow-minded jerk. </p>
<p>First of all, state schools aren't all that cheap. Second of all, how is anybody supposed to elevate themselves in soceity with this type of solution?</p>
<p>Sorry - previous post was incomplete.</p>
<p>It is a shame that our society seems to thrive on a entitlement mentality. Everyone, kids and parents, should have a clear idea of expectations and consequences and then act accordingly. Our plan was very simple. Fortunately our state university is very reasonable. We agreed to pay for that - anything beyond that was their choice. They could go to any school they wanted ( and were accepted to) - but any cost beyond the state U was their responsibility. No ifs or buts - their responsibility and choice.</p>
<p>Worked well for us and the positive aspect was that they feel they earned the end result. They knew they were not entitled to anything, but could work for everything. Both ended up with full merit rides at top 20 universities and as a bonus ended up feeling good about their accomplishment.</p>
<p>Post 118 is astonishing:</p>
<p>"Yes, but there are at least 3 highly-educated parents on this thread alone who are reaping the benefits of FA for their own children. The opportunities their children lacked are very different from the examples given above."</p>
<p>So Bay, What exactly are you saying? Why be so coy about the 3 parents on this thread? </p>
<p>(How dare the children of the highly-educated, low-income single parent accept legitimate financial aid at any school I want my own child to attend & be aided at? Those aid packages should (1) instead go to my child of a highly-educated, higher-income dual parent household; or (2) in addition go to same household, or (3) should be given to no one unless out-of-pocket cost of each enrolled student at Brand X Desirable U is equal & even regardless of current & previous economic circumstance?)</p>
<p>You suggest my D should have rejected the aid offered, out of your feeling of supposed outrage, injustice? You don't know that college apps ask for "educational level of parent(s)" right there on the app?</p>
<p>What you don't know, apparently, and clearly what some others don't know, on some related threads, is that colleges actually VALUE and give extra weight to, families who have made the decision to substitute education for SUV's, vacations, & other attributes of a more enviable lifestyle. It speaks volumes to them about priorities. </p>
<p>But you think it would be preferable to admit poorly prepared students into HYP? Just FYI, such students <em>don't</em> <em>qualify</em>.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow, so basically the creator of this thread is saying that the rich should stay with the rich, and the poor should have to lower themselves to community college. Way to be a narrow-minded jerk.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I think what he's saying is when you apply to colleges, "you pays your money and you take your chances". After the results are in, choose what's best for you from what's available and quittcher bellyaching. No privately funded college "owes" you anything. Re-read ST2's post above for a great approach and attitude.</p>
<p>Re Post 121:</p>
<p>No, I don't think the creator of the thread is saying that. I think that more than one replier is saying that, though, and over & over it is being said: You have not earned your right to a free education, because you were poor. The rich just need to get richer, that's all. The poor should stay poor, where they belong. Further, the poor should remain uneducated or poorly educated, if possible. And under no circumstances should poor children of well-educated but struggling parents (single or not) be granted generous financial aid, regardless of the fact that such generous aid inevitably requires some amount of work + at least some loans, repayment of which for them may be equal to higher loans being repaid by wealthier families, who have more earning power & assets from which to draw.</p>
<p>Well, the lines are clearly being drawn, aren't they? I think the OP is getting some answers to his questions: Apparently many if not most repliers disagree with his "frustration," and in fact are more frustrated than him, but in the opposite direction.</p>
<p>Let's hear it for more entitlement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
I don't feel sorry for the student who has to choose a state school scholarship over a fancy name brand "dream school."
[/quote]
So I guess that puts you in the camp of reserving the "dream school" for the lucky few?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really.</p>
<p>You implied that not being able to afford your dream college is getting it rough and I was pointing that I don't always agree with that sentiment. Many students can't afford their dream college, but go to a less selective one for a scholarship. I am a member of that group. I think students like me are incredibly privileged and should not whine about it, and they are indeed having life come smoothly to them if they get go to a decent college with a scholarship.</p>
<p>So, basically, I think that colleges should do everything they can to make education affordable. I'm all in favor of financial aid and scholarships. HOWEVER, it annoys me when people don't recognize how lucky they are (especially students who complain about getting a substantial scholarship to a good school in lieu of one to their dream school. That is not "having it rough.")</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>I guess I touched a nerve here! No, I am not interested in receiving your D's FA package. I did not apply for FA. My D is taking the unsubsidized loan, however, in order for her to have a financial stake in her education, and provide her with a lesson in financial responsibility and maybe even build a good credit score. </p>
<p>My point was that certain people on this thread lament the terrible plight of the poor and how needy and deserving of FA they are. (Which I do NOT dispute!!!) Neglect at home, few opportunities, working to support their families, etc. It really is heart-wrenching. (And I mean that sincerely). Further, I constantly hear from a certain poster that there is not nearly enough FA to go around to these kids.</p>
<p>I merely find it ironic, maybe even a little hypocritical, that some of the people here who say "too bad, shut-up and go to state school or community college" to the middle-incomers who are frustrated with their limited choices, are the same ones whose kids have been awarded full rides to elite private colleges (including Ivys). Their kids do not fit the afore-described profile, rather they are the offspring of lawyers, internationally-known authors, academics, higher and lower education experts, (outstanding writers, too, btw), educated at elite LACs, whose children are accomplished gymnasts, dancers, and baseball players who had the privilege of being raised by extremely involved, loving, doting parents.</p>
<p>That's all.</p>
<p>" that's all. The poor should stay poor, where they belong. Further, the poor should remain uneducated or poorly educated, if possible. And under no circumstances should poor children of well-educated but struggling parents (single or not) be granted generous financial aid,"</p>
<p>I wonder where higher-income but uneducated families factor into the equation. Maybe D2 should write about the challenges faced by her functionally-illiterate father.</p>
<p>The entitlement mentality is there because it is fed and supported throughout highschool by remarks, magazine/news articles, peers. If you have a child who is a good student, and you are in a district where the children tend to go to college, the talk about college is everywhere. If you are in an area where the kids tend to go away to college, and many go to private colleges, you are competing with the Jones. It's a tough battle to fight. </p>
<p>I put my my son in a private school because quality of education was an important thing to me. I put him in the "best" school he got into. This was highschool. It opened up some worlds that were unintended. Many of the kids at his school go on elaborate vacations, travels, have wonderful internships and lifestyles that our family cannot replicate. It's a downer when we tell him he has to find a job for the summer, and it's not a NYC internship with a name firm, but a job bussing tables at a restaraunt where his peers come to eat. You don't see his school mates working at McD's or gas stations, or other such places. Such work is done by immigrants or low income families, in this area, unlike many other areas where nearly all highschool kids are expected to do menial work over the summer to make some spending and saving money. Though I have noticed in many places now that traditional American teen jobs are being given to folks from overseas that are coming here on a sort of au paar basis to work a summer. Things seem to be changing. </p>
<p>When one son was studying Bio/Eco, there was an opportunity to go to the Amazon rainforests on a school sponsored spring break trip. Not what I had intended. There was a wonder retracing of Odeysseus's journey class/trip that was making its rounds. China, Russia, Cuba... you name it. All of these wonderful worlds opened. An eye opening for me too.</p>
<p>And as for colleges. Well, his school has very, very few kids going to state schools other than Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, and a handful of others. Most of these kids end up at private schools. So in my case, I really asked for setting up my kid to expect a private college. </p>
<p>However, our public school is not so different in the advanced and honors curriculums. Which would have been where he'd be. So when you are in such an environment, what do you expect</p>
<p>I also feel that many of the news articles are so misleading about financial aid. They make it sound like if you do all of the right things and fill out those forms right, your deserving kid will get money. Because there are cases where famiies get something when expecting naught, and some do get more than expected, no one wants to say that there isn't a chance in the world that you are going to get more than a token amount off that $50K tab. In many cases, kids do get some nice packages, but at schools where they do not want to attend. To be honest, it should be made clear that at the most desirable schools where aid is need based and PROFILE is the determiner of need, it is highly unlikely your kid is going to get anything. I have never heard anyone say that. Even at our private school where very few families get or need financial aid. The attitude is that, apply and you may get with a very optimistic outlook. Until the numbers come in. </p>
<p>The blurb of "he's such a good student, so talented, so smart, he'll get a scholarship" is often heard so many times that it becomes an entitlement in the kid's and family's ears. Also the top schools like to herald it loud and clear that no child will be denied a seat in their halls due to cost. You read all of those press releases. The fact that the parent's willingness to pay for the cost of college is how middle income and higher kids are going to a private school is not explained. To me it is very unfair to students, that who their parents are, what they have in assets is such a major component in their choices for college. A kid who gets into, say, an ivy, who has parents who can afford ,by all financial aid measures, to payfor the school is going to be hard put to go if the parents refuse to pay. They won't qualify for aid; there is no merit money. They are in that narrow aisle, at a distinct disadvantage as compared to their peers whose parents are not deemed able to pay for college, since those kids will get the financial aid from those schools. If you are shopping in those few aisles, you are going to think the whole store and all the shoppers feel that way.</p>
<p>"I merely find it ironic, maybe even a little hypocritical, that some of the people here who say "too bad, shut-up and go to state school or community college" to the middle-incomers who are frustrated with their limited choices, are the same ones whose kids have been awarded full rides to elite private colleges (including Ivys)."</p>
<p>I've never said nor implied that, so I hope you are not referring to me. If so, you are mistaken. My point about UC was in response to a post YOU made, not me, in reply to your griping that even TWO YEARS of U.C. was a high amount, an unaffordable amount for a middle-class family. My reply to that specifically addressed one way which would help to remediate one ASPECT (only) of UC cost.</p>
<p>As to nerves, this is the pot calling the kettle black. You are the one who have railed on for pages about the plight of the middle class versus supposedly overfunded lower income people (relative to the middle class). Do not try to artificially place me in a group of people victimizing the middle class. You won't find it here, or anywhere in my cc history.</p>
<p>The nerves being hit are apparently yours, except that it will cause greater anger in anyone to be the subject insinuations rather than straight-out insults.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse..I agree with you. We sat at info session after info session and they all played the same tune. "We try to make our school available to every child who gets in...we don't want financial need to get in any child's way of attending." We had to have a serious talk with our daughter and explain that what they were saying did not apply to her. We were too "rich" to qualify for any need based aid, but too "poor" to be able to pay for full tuition times two children. Did my daughter feel "entitled" to this education? Yes..as much as any other child in these info sessions who had qualifying stats and had worked hard to be a good candidate. But we moved on and narrowed our list to schools that gave merit aid. But ultimately it is true that if I hadn't worked for the last few years in an effort to save more money for education, we might have been able to qualify for aid. We discouraged our daughter from applying to ivies since they give no merit aid. It is ironic, though, that many of her peers with parents who were not as successful financially, and some whose parents had chosen not to work at all (single parents who are being supported by their own parents), and some whose income is unreported...are attending ivies and recieving financial aid. Note...that is not to say that families are not entitled to financial aid. But there are many flaws in the system and many kids who are being left out on both ends of the spectrum.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse - I don't agree with your statement - "To be honest, it should be made clear that at the most desirable schools where aid is need based and PROFILE is the determiner of need, it is highly unlikely your kid is going to get anything.</p>
<p>Is it easy - no, but it certainly is possible if the kids work for it. In our case the merit rides included schools like Duke, WashU and Emory. Certainly gave us what we felt was a desirable choice. But nobody in our family felt entitled to any of these choices. Fortunate & lucky - yes, but also a product of achievement after 4 years of hard work and often sacrifice for the student. Seems to me that also occurs later in life - something about the American dream still being alive. May work at different level for different people, but it still happens.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are the one who have railed on for pages about the plight of the middle class versus supposedly overfunded lower income people (relative to the middle class)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Peace, epiphany, you are the one I actually have the fewest issues with.</p>
<p>But you are mistating my position. I do think the middle class deserves as many opportunities as the rich and poor. I think the lower class is over-funded only in the sense that higher education is way too expensive, so the dollar amount needed for FA grants sucks the life out of any chance of lowering tuition costs for everyone. I don't think I'm being mean-spirited in my belief that college grads who recieved rull rides have a duty to repay part of their gift, if only to provide a chance for another needy student. I was maligned for taking this position, however.</p>
<p>Rule number one about being poor -
It sucks to be poor.</p>
<p>Rule mumber two
Rich folks blame their troubles on the poor</p>
<p>Audiophile notes,"No, I think what he's saying ( the OP)is when you apply to colleges, "you pays your money and you take your chances". After the results are in, choose what's best for you from what's available and quittcher bellyaching. No privately funded college "owes" you anything</p>
<p>Response: I am the OP and Audiophile is exactly right in interpreting what I meant. I never said that the poor should stay poor or uneducated. By the way, I do NOT consider a community college a bad education. </p>
<p>Speedo, post number 134: rule three: The poor blame their troubles on the rich or on a world supposedly geared for the rich...</p>
<p>Free breakfast, free lunch, subsidized housing $75 monthly incl all utilities for a family of 6, food stamps and oh yes,, ,let's not forget the sneakers they buy all their children at a cost of approx. $125 a pair... sounds fair to me... so my husband and I bust our butts working 2 jobs.. and oh yes. we are both well educated.. Phd and MA both.... do we get all this??? no.. nothing.. we work. This is a choice we all make.. our parents were uneducated yet they instilled in us the importance of an education and much more than that.. a strong work ethic. Nothing in life is free. Poor people who don't try, and don't value education or instill in their children a work ethic of some kind shouldn't get a penny for college. And those poor kids who get their college paid for.. most often don't finish anyway.. and those that do.. don't know where to go from there.</p>
<p>Excuse my OT question.
[quote]
Daughter one was accepted to UC Berkeley as out of state student 2 years ago. Tuition was $42K a year and maximum we could get in fnancial aid was $9K a year.
[/quote]
But if she spend a year in CA, dose that mean the next year she qualify for an IS student?</p>
<p>I actually don't have any problem directly with the poor getting financial aid. I also have no problem with the "Uber-Rich" for not having any financial worries. Good for them for becoming successful and being able to afford whatever they want. I have a problem with the middle class basically being force to pay the most. </p>
<p>The problem is; this is all "Rationalized" in the name of education. As if education is somehow in the bill of rights or something. For years people have been resentful of people who have WORKED hard for what they have. You see and hear it every day. I love when I hear people say that "So and so doesn't DESERVE....." or "They don't NEED to have....." or "He's just trying to look cool driving that.......". There is a lot of envy and jealousy in the country.</p>
<p>I personally am not jealous or envious of these people. I am inspired. When I see a wealthy person driving a certain car, living in a certain house, in the 1st class section of the airplane, etc... I am inspired to try and find out how they got successful. I don't think anyone should give me a discount so I can buy the same car, house, etc.... Definitely not for free. Why is it any different for education? Why should someone who makes under $40,000 not have to make any contribution to attend Harvard? Obviously, the person making $1 million a year, probably doesn't care. But the person making $100,000 - $200,000 a year cares. And no, I don't want to hear any whining from people saying if I make that much money, that I shouldn't be complaining. WHY? Did I steal that money from you? Am I suppose to feel guilty because I did what I had to to make that kind of money each year? Am I suppose to feel ashamed because I worked my way through 3 degrees and I didn't make sure you followed?</p>
<p>If the ANNUAL family contribution to Harvard for a family making $40,000 is NOTHING. And a family making above $100,000 could pay between $20,000 and $41,000 A YEAR; there is something wrong with the math. I could understand if it was a flat rate of say 10%; but when those making over $60K a year will have to contribute between 22-47% of their available income as their contribution, max of $41,900 ANNUALLY. (Might as well say full price); there's something wrong.</p>
<p>Again, the millionaire doesn't care; and the person making $40,000 doesn't care. Effectively, neither has to pay anything for Harvard. The middle class however does get screwed.</p>
<p>Now, this is harvard, and they can do whatever they want with private scholarships, aid, grants, loans, etc.... It is usually privately donated money and such. But this is just an example because I already had the numbers. But, if public funds are a portion of the money used for aid, then I think the rules should be changed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, it comes back to class warfare. Why should some kids be from a fortunate family and not have to work their way through college while another kid has to do work programs, loans, summer jobs, etc... Why? Because that's life. It isn't always fare, and it's NOT suppose to be.
[/quote]
Maybe because upper the line, their parents had done the work for them? There is no free lunch, either you do your work for your kid, or let them do the work, or better yet let them do the work for your grand children.</p>
<p>I agree most of Christ's posts.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Poor people who don't try, and don't value education or instill in their children a work ethic of some kind shouldn't get a penny for college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They don't get a penny, the kid does! And because some will fail in the pursuit of a higher education should we stop trying? Or should we only give assistance to the sure bets? Who makes that determination? Ward Connerly may be coming to your state soon enough, if he already hasn't. As for me, I would rather invest in the hope of higher education as opposed to incarceration or cyclical poverty. One way or another, we will ALL pay for it.</p>