<p>Same here MD Mom. Full tuition at Tulane vs. less or none at higher ranked schools, including “top ten”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you, fallenchmist for framing the argument this way; I couldn’t have said it better myself, because my real point was that no matter how unfair the OP might think Dartmouth’s EFC calculation for families earning >$120,000 might be, it certainly isn’t any more unfair than the top flagship public universities in the country. :)</p>
<p>John, I am completely missing your point, I suppose. Seems like apples and oranges to me. Dartmouth is a private school that is free to place whatever burden they want on people that want to go there. To use the words fair or unfair is nonsensical. But there is nothing fair or unfair about it. I can charge $1,000,000 for a bottle of Coke in my store (if I had one). It isn’t fair or unfair, it is just uncompetitive. More pertinent, I suppose, is that my bottle of Coke might be in a one of a kind gold bottle and either someone can afford it and wants it enough to buy it, even if it means taking out loans, or they can’t or don’t want it that much. I am free to do whatever calculations I choose to see if I want to lend them the money and decide how much of the cost they should “put down”.</p>
<p>Public schools, highly rated or not, only have an obligation to the people of that state that have paid taxes into them. Again, there is nothing fair or unfair when it comes to people outside the state. I fail to see how that jives with your comment regarding middle class families and OOS schools. The way I read that statement, it sounds like you think state schools should offer cheaper tuition to OOS students. Sorry, I am not tracking your thought process at all.</p>
<p>I skimmed the thread and did not see mention of National Merit scholarship. If PSAT scores were high too, this could be a factor. Here is a link to qualifying scores last year (varies by state). They rarely vary by more than 2 points per year. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.collegeplanningsimplified.com/NationalMerit.html[/url]”>http://www.collegeplanningsimplified.com/NationalMerit.html</a></p>
<p>That score just gets the student to Semi-Finalists. There are many CC threads about progressing to finalist, but it mostly requires paperwork, a good gpa, and repeated good scores on SAT.</p>
<p>*** man since when was 100k+ not rich? my parents are living off less than 50k with 2 kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess I just think it’s unfair to charge a gold-plated price for a tin-bottle just because you have the power to do it.</p>
<p>So you think the taxpayers of a state have the obligation to subsidize the education of OSS whose family pays no taxes to the state in question? That is what you are saying. Good luck with that!</p>
<p>$100K-$200K is not “rich”, especially if you live in a higher priced housing market (pre-collapse), have a couple of kids, drive a decent car, etc. It should be very comfortable for day-to-day life, for sure. But remember also, most people don’t reach that level until their kids are somewhat older, maybe high school. So while one hopes there were savings for college anyway, at $50,000+ a year for many schools, or even $40,000/year, that income won’t cover it. A lot of people make that mistake, looking at someone making $130,000 or whatever and saying “how could you not be able to afford this”? They didn’t always make that much. That, combined with Americans’ tendency to not save much and be in debt, makes this moment of having to send your child to college and realizing you cannot afford much quite a shock, in many cases.</p>
<p>fallenchemist…I agree with what you are saying…BUT this does not mean that EVERYONE should be able to afford ANY college of their choice. Every state has instate public universities that are supported by the taxpayers of that state. Attending an OOS public requires a higher cost and that is that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>John…are you saying that UMich and UVA and many other public universities …at OOS rates are “tin-bottle” schools? If so, why would you be considering them at ANY price?</p>
<p>
Not sure why the BUT. Isn’t what follows the BUT exactly what I have been saying?</p>
<p>
Well said, thumper1. I would still add that using the term unfair seems way off to me. I know our system is not as free market as it used to be, but it still largely is. The cost of running a state school is probably not less, and might be more for various reasons, than the cost of running a private school. In any case it won’t vary a lot. I am talking the cost to the university, not the cost to the parent/student. Since much of this cost is paid for by the taxes of the residents, it isn’t so much that the parents of those instate students are paying less than the OOS students, it is that they payed over the previous 18+ years. So I think your assumption that OOS students are paying more is a bit of an illusion. Are the OOS parents out more money overall by picking an OOS school? Sure, because they have been paying into their instate school for 18+ years also, via taxes. But that is your choice to forgo that investment and go OOS. Since you didn’t pay into that OOS system all those years, they will get the appropriate amount from you now.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think the gold-plated vs. tin-plated bottle analogy was a terrible analogy but it’s the one that fallenchemist chose. I think what is closer to the reality of the situation is that Dartmouth and other high-quality, need-based schools have pegged the OOS tuition charged by elite land-grant colleges as some sort of benchmark by which they know they are unlikely to lose kids in the $120K income bracket. Fallenchemist is correct in that a lot of families in this category will go to great lengths to pay for “prestige”.</p>
<p>OP, you are lucky. Your son will qualify for academic merit aid at many schools and you have an income high enough that you have options. Compare your situation with someone who has an income of less than 100K and/or an average student. If you feel you can’t afford Dartmouth and other 100% need based schools, you many cross them off your list. You’ll have many other great options. But, you may find that Dartmouth and others are more affordable with 2 kids in college. If you divide the EFC by 2, it’s less than the cost of most state flagships. It’s certainly what I found when my second child applied to colleges and will be attending a 100% need met school. Your EFC will only increase by a percentage of your income so I don’t see a downside to getting a raise.</p>
<p>Fallenchemist…I agree with you. I don’t agree with John. The “but” part was for my disagreement.</p>
<p>John is trying to make a comparison between wealthy private schools that charge a lot (and do not take instate taxpayer money to do so) with OOS publics (that are partially supported by IN state taxpayers). Sounds like he or his kiddo WANTS to go to UMich or wherever…but can’t afford the OOS cost. So…he should apply elsewhere.</p>
<p>My family’s total income (definition according to fafsa) is approximately 80,000. We live in a high cost area. Property taxes are outrageous and and we pay 160.00 a week for healthcare. Neither parent has a pension and the money my parents put towards their 401k gets added back to calculate total income. According to fafsa our EFC is 15,000. The fafsa calculation is flawed because the cost of living index is not part of the calculation. The government is aware of this and recently added a cost of living multiplier to the pell grant calculation. As a side note we are a family of four.</p>
<p>
Well, you’re close. I’m simply trying to reconcile in my own mind why my high school classmates of [cough] a generation ago – who were by no means rich – could afford to send their kids to Michigan and Berkeley even though they lived in New York City all their lives? Something has clearly changed in the dynamics of either college costs or college pricing in the intervening years that is pernicious and represents a loss in quality of life for ordinary “middle-middle” class families everywhere. I’m not pointing the finger at any one particular state or taxpayer; I’m not even pointing the finger solely at public institutions. As I said, the Dartmouths are piggy-backing on the OOS fees charged by the Michigans and the Michigans are being pushed to the max to offer the same amenities offered by the Dartmouths; there is enough blame to go all around.</p>
<p>John - I think you have a skewed vision of things. It has been documented ad nauseum that college costs everywhere have risen far faster than inflation. Dartmouth (and all other schools) are not “piggy-backing” on OOS fees charged by Michigan and the like. If anything I suspect the privates raised their costs first. But for a number of reasons, the cost of running a university has gone up at a faster rate than most things. Tulane was extraordinarily cheaper when I went there. I could never afford it today. What you describe for OOS Michigan and Berkeley is generally true across all schools, public and private. I don’t mean to be nasty, but have you been living in a cave? This has been extremely well documented for at least a decade. And again, it will be as true at publics as at privates, because it is just as expensive (more actually) to build new buildings at the publics, just as expensive to pay professors, just as expensive to keep up subscriptions at the library, etc. etc. Since the person from NYC did NOTHING to support those costs prior to attending Michigan, why in the world should they ride on the backs of those that did?</p>
<p>BTW, the gold bottle wasn’t an analogy, it was an example of people’s ability to charge what they want, and whether the market will pay it or not and how. If you cannot afford it, then you have to buy something else. It is an analogy only inasmuch as that means if you cannot afford Harvard, but Tulane offers you a nice scholarship to make it affordable, Tulane it is. If Tulane doesn’t offer you that either, Big State U it is. That’s just life. If you want to call that unfair, I guess you will. But I certainly don’t see it that way. Unfortunate for you, certainly. But I want to drive a $100,000 car too. Oh well, the car company doesn’t think they should lower their prices just because I want it. They will tell me to go down the street and buy a Ford.</p>
<p>why are you flying off the handle? You’re saying virtually the same thing I just said, but using slightly more bold, capitalized, language. </p>
<p>No, for the record, I do not live in a cave.</p>
<p>LOL, that is not flying off the handle (the bold is simply for emphasis of course), and no I am not saying virtually the same thing.</p>
<p>
You say it with wonderment like this is the first time you are realizing this. I am pointing out two things you don’t seem to realize based on your posts: 1) That this has been a well known issue for some time; and 2) That OOS publics, for the purpose of charging tuition, are no different in their need to cover costs than privates, and further that OOS attendees should not get relief from paying to cover those costs since they paid no taxes in that state.</p>
<p>Is the system perfect? No of course not. A person could live someplace 20 years paying taxes the entire time, move when their child is a junior or senior in high school (and let’s assume they had no choice about moving), and have to pay OOS if the child wants to go to that original State U. Now that is unfair, but so is the fact that the same person might have happened to have moved from a state with a very ordinary State U. to one were it is a “public Ivy”, and they get an unfair bargain. That’s life. I suppose in better times for jobs, a person could move like that on purpose. Anyway, that is the **HUGE<a href=“lol”>/B</a> difference in what you have been saying and what I said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most Americans NEVER reach that level. Family income of $100K puts you at or above the 80th percentile of American family income.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fallenchemist, if you’re going to quote someone it’s customary not to snip out the parts that don’t support your premise. I tried very distinctly to state:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The difference between you and me is that I reserve my right to call the situation appalling. And to express surprise, anguish, dispepsia, and a whole range of other attitudes – not at you, personally – but, at the situation in general. Thank you.</p>