Now; if you are the middle income $100-$200K; then yes; you are getting screwed. You practically can't get any actual financial aid. However, there are plenty of private scholarships, decent loans, schools with merit, etc... If you say that money is standing in the way, then that is your choice. You have chosen for the money to stand in your way. And, if I might say, that is actually a wise choice. If I was poor; I would definitely send my kids to Harvard if they could get accepted. It's practically free. If I was a millionaire, I would also send them because I wouldn't care. As a middle income, I wouldn't think of it unless they were getting scholarships and such.
[/quote]
So basically the middle class kids would have LESS choice in a sense of money consious; but more choices in a sense they actually have to make choice (since the poor and rich kids don't have to think about a second, just go)? I'm confused (scrach head here).</p>
<p>Every scholarship that my son and daughter ever applied for always had some type of essay required of them. An essay that required them to answer certain questions. I think that anyone who APPLIES for aid, should have to do such an essay. How that essay is answered will determine IF and HOW MUCH aid they get.</p>
<p>NJMom; very profound question and observation, but you are correct. Assuming that kids from poor, middle class, and rich families all did well and got accepted to Harvard, Out of State Private, and In State Public Schools. The poor and rich really don't have much decisions to make. They have been accepted to harvard, and it isn't really costing them anything. Why not go. The middle class, while have also been accepted to the same schools, would wind up paying anywhere from $10-$45,000 a year to go to college. They probably need to do a lot of soul searching to determine how much they can afford and if the payback will be worth it.</p>
<p>if a person gets into a college, s/he should be entitled to the best financial aid package possible.</p>
<p>anyone who wants to go to a notable school should be able to. who is the op to tell a student of low economic status to limit his/her possibilities due to circumstances s/he cannot control. that is ridiculous.</p>
<p>btw, how would essay based aid work? would the student write about why they deserve the money? or would it be based upon a random question? if so, how will this differ from the standard application essay? would admission officers say, "oh I liked this essay the best, there for we will give him a full-ride." conversely, would officers say "oh this applicant's essay was terrible, lets only give him a hundred dollars."</p>
<p>Why stop with education? Why not give everyone aid so they can financially be equal? Oh yea, we already do that with welfare, food stamps, etc.... Why not just say it isn't fair that a poorer person drives a 94 celebrity while another person is driving a Mercedes or Volvo? Why not say it's not fair that the poor person lives in a 900 sf apartment while another person and family lives in a 5000 sf house in the suburbs?</p>
<p>So, what is the difference here. You are saying that a person should automatically be allowed to go to harvard, yale, princeton, etc.... because they got in. Doesn't matter if they can afford it. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. I have no problem with "AID". That means assistance. But assisting to HYPS is a lot different than assisting to University of Wherever. WHY should they get to go to HYPSM etc... and pay NOTHING, while a middle class family has to pay $42000? Why, because they can afford it more???? Class warfare. Sorry, but no one said that aid shouldn't be given at all. Just not to a $50,000 school just because they were able to get in. I know kids who get into schools like that all the time and they try for the scholarships and grants and wind up turning the schools down because they just can't afford it. But, if they were poor, they could afford it. That makes no sense. Why not take government money that's used for aid, and help the kid go to State "U". They get a great education and the money goes back into the taxpayer system. Plus the cost per student is cheaper so you can help more kids.</p>
<p>For a moment, lets take the poor out of the equation. So the rich can go to Harvard, as the money isn't an issue but the middle class has to think about it, and maybe instead decide to still get a great, but much less expensive education elsewhere. Sure they won't have the Harvard experience, but they still will have the education that will open up opportunities to med school, or good jobs, or whatever educational goal they have. How is that different from the rich getting to pick the coolest car, and the middle class having decide between splurging for the fancy car, or getting a quality car that is just as safe, but perhaps not as fast and sexy? This is just life. Money can buy you opportunity in all sorts of ways, not just through buying a more prestigious education. If a private college is not interested in subsidizing an extremely cool educational opportunity for a particular middle class student (and everything I've read says that they are willing to subsidize some middle class students with certain talents...) then I think they should be able to pick. </p>
<p>It is here the poor come in. Almost every private institution feels they should subsidize the very unfortunate students that show promise. Other than Pell grants, it's not the government doing it, it is the choice of the private institution. Just as when airlines occasionally chose deserving travelers to upgrade to first class, even if they aren't frequent fliers. It's their airline, if they decide the publicity, or customer goodwill would be worth say, putting a squadron of troops returning from Iraq in first class, well, power to them.</p>
<p>I do think the states have a responsibility to ensure every citizen in their state can receive a college education if the student is willing to work for it. I think California is providing that with their three tier CC, Cal State, UC system. I don't think the government is required to ensure every student in the state gets to go away to college for four years. That is why the state of California has sprinkled educational opportunities through out the state. All urban or surburban kids could commute to a college campus while living at home. I do think it is the responsibility of the state to reduce or waive tuition fees and subsidize books, transportation and other class costs for students who truely can't afford it.</p>
<p>I think some people really have to spend time with students from different economic classes before throwing random accusations that the poor have a ready made college education free prepackaged handed to them with a bow on top. Don't just say my daughter went to school with the food stamp kid who is going to Harvard for free. How do you know the whole story? There were 350 students in my graduating class. Not one ever made it HYPs. I think nobody even thought of applying and probably would have shoved a kid down the @## if he mentioned he is applying. That how it is. It is extremely rare for the poor to get that coveted 2400. If the kid did, he probably gone through hell to achieve what he did. He did it not based on his parents hard work but his own. Less than 1% of those low economic background ever hit the academic levels for Ivies but when than person does, I think the student deserves the higher education commendable for their hard work. I know one wonderful girl in CC with an EFC 0 and SAT 2400, Asian girl, who got in the Ivies. But I still read somewhere the Ivies didn't meet her need, and she had been worried on where to go. I hope she goes somewhere great anyhow.</p>
<p>Anyway I am protesting, I am staying from the parents forum until Monday!</p>
<p>This discussion touches me at both ends, so here are my 2 cents. </p>
<p>I started at the really inexpensive, local community college (a really great education for me, btw) and, after two years, transferred to a private university from where I received my undergraduate degree. It would have been really difficult for me to attend college without financial help, so Im eternally grateful for the aid I received. Fast forward to today, and Im in a position to pay for my childrens education. The one overriding feeling is, again, thankfulness. While I understand the frustration of some in seeing some people live above their means and pay less for college, (Ive met some of these people, so I know they exist) Id rather be in my shoes. Because I got a bit lucky and saved lots of pennies, my children are now free to choose. Being where Ive been and knowing what I know, thats such a tremendous gift that I dont resent even the spendthrift. </p>
<p>It also helps that, although I value education a lot, I think of it as a commodity that can be obtained very fruitfully at various price points.</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.
[/quote]
Wow, I don't know this. Naive of me. Then you have to wonder if their own 'elite' high education diddn't do a thing for them, how do you expect those well intentioned FA from elite college benefit to their kids. There is no doubt plenty of 'intelegent' gens run in the family. But one has to wonder????</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are saying that a person should automatically be allowed to go to harvard, yale, princeton, etc.... because they got in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvard, Princeton, Yale and a myriad of other well endowed schools are saying those things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But assisting to HYPS is a lot different than assisting to University of Wherever. WHY should they get to go to HYPSM etc... and pay NOTHING
[/quote]
For much as been given, much is required. Maybe this proverb is coming into play. Even in a non sectarian institution.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plus the cost per student is cheaper so you can help more kids
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If the government aid is the same, which it should be regardless of school attended for the most part, and the selective schools are filling in the gap, the cost is the same to the taxpayer, and arguably the reward may be greater to the individual and society as a whole. </p>
<p>Your references to cars and housing aren't good comparisons, because not many are making those comparisons. A car isn't a necessity, but education and learning are. Especially for those trying to break the cycle of poverty. These talented kids didn't choose their parents nor their circumstances for the most part. Generally, those that have been given opportunities at elite institutions have enhanced their lives, their families, their communities, and this country. How is this a bad thing? Even with the government intervention, there is so much stratification that the rich, however you define it, are still getting richer and have the most opportunities at wealth, power and influence at their disposal. To bitterly complain about a realtively few socio economically deprived individuals having a seat at the table of power and influence is sad indeed.</p>
<p>Post 149:
"Harvard, Princeton, Yale and a myriad of other well endowed schools are saying those things."</p>
<p>Bingo. (But I've only been saying <em>that</em> for several pages, too.) :)</p>
<p>Madville, this just goes to the same line of argument on this thread by the resentful ones that the blame for HYP's financial aid, is--all together now-- The Poor! Yes, The Poor! They're responsible for the policies, and it's up to them to correct the policies. (And it wouldn't hurt for them to start by surrendering their f.a. to the exceptionally deserving upper-middle-class -- since we all know -- cf. post 136 -- that "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>There ya' go: There's your enlightened, open-minded, "educated" upper-middle-class.</p>
<p>Post 136 is just clueless. (Not sure which decade is even being referred to; welfare is essentially non-existent in my neck of the woods. The favorite income source of choice for the unemployed poor, in my region, is drugs, followed by violent crime. Those who have neither the skill nor the stomach for either, end up homeless, with not enough social services to go around to account for the numbers of needy. They're not buying $125 sneakers any time soon.) Much more importantly, this group being described is --listen carefully-- COMPLETED UNINTERESTED IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Get it? They are not matriculating to HYP any time soon, and surely aren't a threat to anyone on CC in terms of college admissions.</p>
<p>Posts 145, 146, & 147 are inspiring & give me hope that there is some humanity & sanity & accuracy on CC.</p>
<p>"Posts 145, 146, & 147 are inspiring & give me hope that there is some humanity & sanity & accuracy on CC"</p>
<p>Maybe I'm just a total moron, but I haven't seen so much (actually not much at all) inhumanity or insanity to make you hopeless. Just different points of view and that aforementioned venting.</p>
<p>I'm not going to call you a "moron," or anything close. I'm referring to the regular trashing of lower-income people & the supposedly undeserved financial boost they get, etc. I don't want to restate the posts I referenced. I think their messages are obvious. Read the whole thread, perhaps: you'll see a pattern.</p>
<p>The "aforementioned venting" was accompanied by a fair amount of blaming the recipients (of aid), not to mention insulting the messengers.</p>
<p>I'll say what I've said in the past to the AA whiners on the Admissions Forum: Quit blaming the URM's who did not create the policies: if you have an "issue" with representing under-represented races in greater quantities where those quantities don't exist, take it up with the policymakers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Much more importantly, this group being described is --listen carefully-- COMPLETED UNINTERESTED IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Get it? They are not matriculating to HYP any time soon, and surely aren't a threat to anyone on CC in terms of college admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ain't that the truth! LOL! I know many of these types and when they say, "what's been happenin'", I share my recent college visit experiences of my S and when I list the schools, Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Rice, I might as well have been speaking yiddish. That's even the response from many of my middle to upper middle class co-workers. The fact is, most scholarship monies go to the very people who are complaining the most vehemently.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you have an "issue" with representing under-represented races in greater quantities where those quantities don't exist, take it up with the policymakers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well they did in Washington State, Cal, Michigan, Texas. Guess what, they're still complaining. "Hell (or many CC upper/middle class posters) is never full or satisfied." Lol!</p>
<p>Maybe not in your neck of the woods. My sister tells me that if Nike doesn't bring out its newest shoe the weekend after welfare checks come out, then the shoes won't sell.</p>
<p>I want to liken this to gasoline for a minute. Would you people with money be willing for the US to increase the price for a gallon of gasoline to about $8.00 so that those who can pay for the gas can also supply the people who cannot afford the gas even at $3.25-3.50 a gallon? Sounds fair, doesn't it???</p>
<p>undisclosed,
Well I guess that serves me right, LOL, for being too serious -- which I'm forever being accused of. Logic belongs to the serious, and yes, it's not fun. (I'm also forever being accused of being too logical.) But at least a few of these posts have lightened it up a bit for me, given me some laughs. Esp. visualizing the "happenin'" conversation about semi-pronounceable LAC's.</p>
<p>Re the states protesting URM policies: Still the same. It's generally not brought to the policymakers, but to the feet of the recipients of those policies, as if they wield enormous power in the legislatures. LOL, I had never heard that line about Hell, & yet I'm theologically trained as well. (My religion has made an art of relegating various types of sinners to said abode.)</p>
<p>Oh whoops, that's right: I shouldn't mention my education. My children do not deserve f.a. from an <em>educated</em> parent, only from a stupid, uneducated one, perhaps. (Ahem, a child with bad genes: unable to do the work at HYP, but deserving of f.a.)</p>
<p>^^ Just ways of demonstrating the contorted "logic" of some...</p>