<p>So who is fortunate or unfortunate in terms of income may be defined differently depending on what state you are from.</p>
<p>On CC folks often list 40 or 45K as the median family income. In most states, per the US census data median family income for a family of 4 is much higher. </p>
<p>So
Income</a> - Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months by Family Size</p>
<p>The world is not fair and maybe that is part of what they are trying to teach you. If college is to prepare you for the real world I think they have to do it. Every day there are murders that walk free just because someone screwed. My point is that everything is not going to be fair so just get use to it.</p>
<p>Skygirl: Unfortunately, from the responses you can see there are a lot of issues that affect this situation. For example, what’s middle class and not. The government has been not adjusting definitions so it can collect more tax from an increasing number of tax payers. That’s what the AMT issue is you have heard about. Ultimately, you cannot look at income by itself and make a judgment. It turns out that a family with say a $100,000 may have the same real income as someone with at $200,000 income. That is a sobering thought which suggests working harder may not pay off for a number of reasons. How can this be? Simply the middle class is getting taxed to death with no breaks. Who then pays the taxes for all the breaks and entitlement programs? Consider the following:</p>
<ol>
<li> Tax phase outs occur on almost everything. That means there is no tax credit for education, which may more than level the playing field or advantages those with less.</li>
<li> The AMT wipes out about 3 times as many $’s in deductions as the value of the tax. Hence, if someone’s AMT were $5,000 it would effectively wipe out or nullify the deductions for 3 children, while someone not facing the tax with three kids would get $15,000 in deductions.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>For people just on the other side of the break point that is a huge difference in taxes owed. But it affects other things also. Car dealers will tell you that you can get a $3,500 for purchasing a hybrid car if done at a particular time of year. What they do not tell you is that these are also subject to phase outs.</p>
<p>There is also the issue of the cost of living where you live. A $100,000 income in Dothan, Ala, Hazelton, PA, Butte, MT may be good and a $200,000 income in San Francisco, New York, LA, etc., may be too little. Cost of living has to be figured in. People who live in high cost areas may get higher incomes, but it is often due to the cost of living. Big cities often have a wage tax not found in smaller places. Often other costs are the same. Auto insurance is higher and schools may be not as good or risky so you are forced to send your kids to private schools for both education and safety.</p>
<p>Without boring you and everyone else, the point is when you understand taxes, costs of living, what you think is not right changes. </p>
<p>Also, there are the scam artists who “claim poverty” but are not. Yet for various reasons are not challenged. They may even have a nice income, say $120,000 or higher, which somehow gets shielded. However, they have sold the idea that they are “dirt” poor. So the kids go to private school on scholarships, get trips to Europe for events on “scholarships” provided by school associations, get sports or other activity training for free or at very limited costs, and are basically always looking for a handout. Yet if you talked to them without knowing better you would say they need lots of help. To be sure there are scam artists at both ends of the spectrum, but they hurt the system since we are all paying for them.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should assume that the schools are aware of the number of issues involved and are capable of making reasonable decisions. Better yet, look at where the government is spending all its money – your money? Could it pay for most folks college? Could it give tax breaks to everyone?</p>
<p>My take on the OP's question: "I saw a lot of rich or upper middle-class students applying for scholarships and financial aid and colleges give them the dough! Is that fair?"</p>
<p>1) "Rich" or "upper middle class" are pretty relative terms ...as others have said, $100k in Wyoming is going to go a lot further than $100k in L.A. Paying for college is a strain on everyone except the super, super wealthy.</p>
<p>2) Anyone can apply for merit based scholarships and I think it is fair for anyone who meets the school's criteria to receive. Merit money is the only way I can afford to go to my top choice school, since my family is "too rich" for financial aid. I've worked very hard for my grades and overcome a lot and did not have any SAT prep other than studying myself from the book. I go to a public high school and investigated schools and scholarships all last year because I knew it was up to me to bridge the gap between what my parents can contribute and the actual CoA. I believe I deserve to get the merit money my school offered me.</p>
<p>3) People with high EFCs will get little to no need based aid. I have not heard of any wealthy kids RECEIVING need based aid. Even still, there is nothing wrong with them APPLYING for aid ...my school told me to apply anyways just so they have my stuff on file in case something happens in the future.</p>
<p>With all of the exceptions and circumstances listed above, it seems to me that the most intellectually fair idea would be to have everybody pay the same amount.</p>
<p>NOT 40K. The only reason colleges can charge SO much for tuition etc. is that there are so many financing options available - loans + financial aid, namely. If everybody actually had to pay 40,000, students would not be able to pay- and colleges would not be able to charge so much.</p>
<p>Why not just ignore parents, and say that it is the student's responsibility to pay for college? Then calculate, each student can earn ~$X in a year, will be able to pay off ~$Y in loans in Z years, so we are going to charge $(4X+Y).</p>
<p>After all, why is it fair that my mom, who generated consumer debt to pay for piano lessons + college classes that helped me GET INTO college, and I wiill probably end up being responsible for paying full price (with an income <80K), since my dad makes twice what she does but claims (to us) to have no money (and thus not be able to pay)? Then again, how would it be fair if somebody who is very poor be excluded from college because that person cannot pay? Then again, why is it fair that I'm going to be up to my knees in loans when my friend whose family has a low income will be able to graduate debt free?</p>
<p>Overall, as mentioned, the world isn't free. So why not say, EVERY student has to pay the same price, and students are assumed to be responsible for their charges. Moreover, keep that price to be a price that students can pay. That way, all that matters is how hard the student works. Because right now, I am feeling very jealous of my friend, who will be ABLE to pay her way through college because her parents' income is low - and I hate myself for that, because obviously low income is not good! Really, in the current financial aid process, INCENTIVES are all screwed up - in fact, the system seems very un-capitalist. Why not have the government stop subsidizing loans, instead protect people from INSANE COLLEGE PRICES, and have EVERYbody at college A pay the same amount - and have that amount be something students could actually reasonably expect to pay in 4 years + some years, perhaps, of debt.</p>
<p>"There is a program in Indiana where if your parents make under some random amount of money and you graduate from an accredited high school they give a full-ride to almost any school in the state, including a lot of the private schools. That's ridiculous."</p>
<p>Diamonddave--Before you call something ridiculous get your facts straight. The program in IN, called 21st Century scholars, is NOT based upon some random amount of money. It's based upon federal poverty guidelines. For example, if students are eligible for free or reduced lunches in IN they are eligible. They must maintain a minimum GPA in high school and middle school and agree to abide by a code of conduct. Then they may receive an amount equivalent to instate tuition at any instate school. Tuition is NOT the same as a full ride. There are books, room and board, etc. to consider. I know the program is strict regarding the GPA. One of my D's friends lost her eligibility because her GPA was too low.</p>
<p>Let's look at another for profile business we all have dealt with - bank. </p>
<p>If you don't have much money, they put all sort of fees on your account. You have to buy your own books of checks. If you have some money, they give you a bunch of perks. We have one of those accounts where they give us a free use of safe deposit box, free travellers check or cashier's check etc. </p>
<p>Why don't the bank give all these perk like free checks etc to those who need the most? Because bank wants your business. If they don't give us any perk, we will simply find another banks. </p>
<p>I think someone has said this before, merit money is for school to attract the best students who otherwise could attend another Univ. </p>
<p>Life is not fair, have never been and will never be.</p>
<p>UriA702: "My parents pay my full tuition. I could of applied for merit aid and received quite a bit, but that is unfair to those who need it far more than I do. "</p>
<p>posted today :<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/new-york-university/468493-nyu-financial-aid.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/new-york-university/468493-nyu-financial-aid.html</a></p>
<p>"is there merit aid typically offered to graduate students?</p>
<p>I am thinking of applying to Tisch for ITP (interactive telecommunications program.) However The 60k annually seems a bit steep and I can not afford it on my own. I am unwilling to take 40k a year in loans, I have accumulated enough debt as an undergrad. is there any need or merit based aid offered at NYU?
I am coming in from an IVY engineering programming with a very good gpa."</p>
<p>UriA702,posted today. ???????????????????????????</p>
<hr>
<p>That would seem fair, everyone pay equal amount. But it's not that simple. The student whose parents have the $$ are able to provide living expenses, books, etc. etc.. Some students are not at all able to pay for college, even with a part time job which can only generate so much, many times not enough to finance their education. </p>
<p>Everyone graduating with debt in loans is not an ideal way of doing things either. The middle class is already hurting too much. People who graduate with heavy debt, due to insufficient contribution from family to finance their education will be spending all their money on expenses and paying back those loans and will not contribute much to the economy. </p>
<p>The wealthy student will also most likely have more connections through family & other wealthy friends, and land a higher paying position. Like it or not that is the truth. If things were, as many of you have suggested, equal than why are the high earning families sending more and more children to college while the poor are sending less and less? </p>
<p>There are many questions and nobody has answers. It is impossible to please everyone. However it makes no sense to keep the current model which allows the wealthy to gain top notch education and continue to accumulate wealth, while the poor need to work harder (resulting in a lower gpa due to part or in some cases full time jobs while attending school) end up with heavy debt, and no opportunity for graduate study because of all the debt incurred.</p>
<p>It is also completely unfair that dumb athletes get full rides & all expenses paid while the school has this illusion that top athletes will generate enough revenue to create more resources with which to supply students with aid. </p>
<p>I also think the majority of this issues lies within people trying to live outside their means, as Americans tend to do quite frequently. There is a illusion that attending a fancy private school is a fast track to success. Many students are so hell bent on attending schools they can not afford that all they can do is complain about it. Public education offers something private schools do not, the opportunity to graduate with reduced or eliminated debt. Not only does this cause less stress after graduation for the student, but the whole "private school grads make higher salaries" is practically eliminated when student debt is paid off.</p>
<p>Another major problem is all this liberal arts nonsense. The educational system in America emphasizes "think outside the box" and "think abstractly," inadvertently reducing emphasis on math and sciences. Sure, liberal arts grads can go into many different fields, but on average they go into the lower paying fields. The end result is not enough training and acquired skills to yield a good paying job. The American middle class is said to be "hurting" and emphasis on liberal arts is part of the problem. The figures speak for themselves. Students are encouraged to situate themselves with an education nothing short of a staggering economic investment, and upon graduation less is earned, and over a lifetime less is earned.</p>
<p>dtex50 - you are obviously unfamiliar with the financial aid process, schools offer a specific amount of subsidized loans, a certain amount of student loans, and the rest is to be paid in cold hard cash to the university. Accumulating debt through loans, and the remaining balance (of which is to be paid off by family or part-time work) is not the same thing.</p>
<p>Graduate programs are not equal. Graduate students are adults who are more than likely living on their own and have been supporting themselves for a while. The endowment for the graduate programs is different, they are professional schools and typically receive separate funding through diverse means. I was asking if NYU offers aid for graduate students. Graduate students are typically not supported by their families, your whole implication is irrelevant.</p>
<p>"...it seems to me that the most intellectually fair idea would be to have everybody pay the same amount." </p>
<p>Or better, why not charge everyone what they can pay? As a well-known historical figure wrote, "from each according to his needs... "</p>
<p>If we charged everyone the same price, why would I choose to go to the local community college, v. an Ivy or a private LAC. </p>
<p>Or, to use another example, why not charge everyone the same price for a car? We all have a need to get somewhere, right, so just charge one flat price. Henry Ford built an industry around this concept - so the question is, why aren't we all driving Model-Ts today?</p>
<p>UriA702: Having been independent since the age of 16 and having 2 grad degrees (M.S.& Ph.D) and an M.D., I am somewhat familiar with the process of bankrolling grad school. But who, knows? Things are probably different now. Best of luck in grad school.</p>
<p>p.s. Did you decide to go with the Lexus?</p>
<p>In the end, none of us have control over the circumstances in which we are born. If a child works hard in school, I would like to believe that they should have a chance to get the educational opportunites that they are entitled to based on their own efforts and results (not how much or how little their parents make.) </p>
<p>It is hard for someone who is from limited means to understand that while one appears "rich" on paper, it does not mean that their parents have access to the cost of private college education or are willing to make the financial sacrifice to pay $200,000 + per child times the number of children.</p>
<p>So this is how it goes for a lot of kids who grow up in middle/upper middle class towns: the kids that get no financial aid go to state schools. The kids who get financial aid who are below the norm financially for these towns, apply to private schools that meet full need and go there for next to nothing.</p>
<p>So the OP is complaining that she may need to go to a state school and it's unfair. I'm not sure why that is if she applies to private schools that meet need fully. But if she does reluctantly end up in a state school, she may find herself slumming it with a lot of kids she considered affluent!</p>
<p>I don't think there is anything wrong with Middle class families applying for Financial Aid and scholarships, paying for college is tough. I'm pretty sure school's can decided whether that particular family needs the money or not</p>
<p>uskoolfish - I am under the impression (due to TAP) that the student is a New York State resident. If that is the case, I assure you there are plenty of affluent New York families who send their kids to public schools due to the excellent value. </p>
<p>New York has quite a few excellent choices for public education and you should be looking into them. CUNY honors for arguments sake offers students 0 tuition costs, you would be eligible for a pell grant and other aid, and you will receive great perks such as a laptop, career services, special internship's etc.. I think part of the college process is thinking strategically, the SUNY and CUNY schools are a great value, especially some of the CUNY schools in NYC which gain so much just from being in Manhattan.</p>
<p>^^CT2010dad: I mean each college charge a set amount, not every college the same, sorry for the confusion.</p>
<p>Why not charge everyone what they can afford? Because determining how much a family can afford is impossible, especially when "being able to afford X" is such a subjective criteria (do you take into account location? what if noncustodial parent won't pay? how about people who are paying for vacation homes - they certainly "can't afford" the money that they're using for the home. etc...). Can you imagine if cars cost "as much as you can pay?" or HOUSES?? That would be ridiculous! It would be a way for any car company, or house-seller, etc., to take all of your money (or a high percentage of it), and say, well we've determined taht this is what you can afford. Hmm, kind of sounds a little bit like colleges asking for a very high percentage of one's income. If you're rich and you can pay that much, that's great! If you're poor and you are just fighting to keep yourself above the line, that's great too, given current financial aid measures! But if you've got just enough money, above some arbitrary point, colleges have the power to take as much of it as they want, force you into debt, and call it "EFC." Sure, then you have a choice not to go to that college, etc. But essentially, given the subjectivity and downright backwardness of making people "pay what they can", I propose that each college cost a constant, student-manageable (though perhaps with a lot of work) amount, and that the government + business ventures, etc. make up the difference in funding a school's activities. Is it a perfect solution? No, but it's a lot more objective + capitalist than the one currently in place.</p>
<p>Uri--
My own daughter got accepted at Binghamton and is awaiting to see if other private schools will accept her and offer merit aid. But there are many schools that my daughter might have gotten accepted into that she did not apply to because we knew we are ineligible for financial aid and would be under too much financial strain to pay full fare (without the hope of a reduced tuition if she gets merit aid.)</p>
<p>I am not complaining. My daughter will be left with good options either way. I just find it ironic that the OP who has considerable financial limitations is wary of a state university education that she will get for free, when so many children of "affluent" parents will end up in the same place. (And the OP can probably attend many private schools with financial aid that don't offer merit aid.)</p>
<p>I myself attended Brooklyn College in the 70's and Hunter College about 10 years ago to get a graduate degree. Both schools offered me an excellent education and landed me in good jobs.</p>
<p>uskoolfish, actually the OP said the state school she's been accepted to is <em>not</em> meeting full need... not that she, as you say, "will get for free."</p>
<p>Merit based scholarships are very ethical. If a rich kid is smarter than you and more attractive than you to a school, if she receives the scholarship but you didn't ask yourself how come the rich kid is smarter than you not why she applied for it in the first place. Need-based financial aid goes to kids who have financial need so that "rich kid" may actually require need based financial aid.</p>
<p>Scholarships are often more about the school's needs than the student. In the same way that a school will give an athletic scholarship to a star quarterback regardless of his means, a school looking to boost its academic stats may give awards based on scores and GPA with no regard to need. It's fair, even if it is frustrating to those who don't make the cut. Fortunately, most colleges award a lot more need-based aid than merit aid.</p>