lack of spending money and college choice

<p>I'm thinking a Pell-eligible student on a full aid package will not have a lot of money to spend at college beyond any work-study income that isn't required to pay for the school itself. They have room and board.</p>

<p>Are there certain colleges, or college settings that are harder for this student? </p>

<p>In a discussion the other day about NYC and Boston, my S, who is in college in neither city but has friends in both, said it's really hard not to have money in an expensive city...wealthier friends can go out and eat wherever they like, go clubbing, whatever college kids do beyond free/cheap stuff like museums or parks, and you can't go. He thinks it's easier to be at a school where most kids stay on campus since then everyone is socializing at parties and eating college food and living in a dorm and if some kids have nice cars or designer clothes, it's not the same kind of difference in ability to DO stuff.</p>

<p>What do you think...is it harder for a poor kid to be at certain schools, or in certain settings, than others?</p>

<p>Might depend on the major also. Some majors might attract more frugal types, or may consume more time in school work, leaving less time for expensive other activities.</p>

<p>The student’s preferred other activities also matter. A student who lifts weights at the campus subsidized gym or runs along the local roads and trails would have a lower cost lifestyle than one whose preferred sports are downhill skiing or snowboarding. A student who has no interest in alcohol or other recreational drugs will not have expenses for that either.</p>

<p>A lot depends on the niche the kid gets into. Our kids both attended a U where there are uber-rich, poor and everyone in between. The city of LA where they attended school is often considered a fairly expensive one. Some of their friends were much richer than them but most of those they were closest to were also watching their funds and careful with their expenses so it wasn’t hard for kids that had varying income levels.</p>

<p>When there was a huge income disparity, they figured out ways to make things work. For example, one kid might pay for expensive dinner while the one with more limited finances paid for parking. It worked for the folks involved. There are also a myriad of low cost and free things to do on most campuses and big cities.</p>

<p>OHMomof2, I agree with your thinking. DS eliminated one school from his list for the exact reason. He doesn’t want to pay $40 for a night out and I don’t want to pay $250 for a night of hotel when I visit him.</p>

<p>What do you think…is it harder for a poor kid to be at certain schools, or in certain settings, than others?</p>

<p>I think you have to consider the “cost of living” in the town that a student will be going to school. Also consider the cost of travel…flights, shuttles, etc, especially at holiday time. Yes, and consider the cost the parents have to pay to visit, help move in, attend graduation, etc.</p>

<p>It makes intuitive sense at least, that if you are stuck essentially on campus in Minnesota in the winter you aren’t going to be faced with the same opportunities to go out and do stuff…no heading to the Met or a club with bottle service.</p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughts so far. I would add that this student isn’t (so far) a partier. So the appeal of a city is that there are lots of social things to do besides go to parties and drink.</p>

<p>The downside may be that its not affordable to go do many of the things friends with more resources might want to do.</p>

<p>I appreciate parental responses, especially those with kids in this situation, but I am also interested in hearing from students about this, students who are on full need-based scholarships.</p>

<p>I think it’s hard for lower income students to be at many colleges and universities these days, when both private and public schools have plenty of kids with extra spending money. The only exceptions might be community colleges with a predominently lower income student body. However, elite private schools where a large number of students are full pay might be the hardest. My adult son and daughter attended Haverford with very generous financial aid. I know it was a culture shock for them to realize just how wealthy some of the kids’ families were. Personally, I’m so old that when I was in college (late 60’s) most kids (at least at Bucknell) actually ate in the dining halls and spent little time or money off campus.<br>
My friends and I never once went out to eat (not even pizza), unless someone’s parents were visiting. I was thinking about this issue recently and wondering how my current teenagers (all adopted) will fare in college with much less than average spending money. We are Pell-eligible and it will be difficult enough just to pay for absolute essentials (none of them are outstanding students, so I’m sure they won’t be going to colleges that give super aid).</p>

<p>Perhaps considering economic diversity of student backgrounds can help a student select schools where there may be less social pressure toward high cost habits, or where there is enough of a mix that a student who has less money or just wants to spend less can find others also inclined to low cost habits.</p>

<p>[Best</a> Colleges: Economic Diversity - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/11/03/best-colleges-economic-diversity]Best”>http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/11/03/best-colleges-economic-diversity)</p>

<p>[Best</a> Colleges: Economic Diversity Among Top Schools - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/11/03/best-colleges-economic-diversity-among-top-schools]Best”>http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/11/03/best-colleges-economic-diversity-among-top-schools)</p>

<p>^ very useful thank you ucb.</p>

<p>This conversation actually came up regarding Columbia as one of the U’s we were discussing, and there it is with 30% Pell students :)</p>

<p>Something else to consider is that the “top” (by USNWR definition) schools with high Pell grant student percentages appear to be more transfer-friendly than most. UCLA and Berkeley have a large intake at the junior level of transfer students from community colleges, while Columbia and USC appear to be more transfer-friendly than most private schools. Note also that Columbia places non-traditional non-engineering students in a separate division (General Studies).</p>

<p>What this may mean is that the SES diversity at the frosh level may not necessarily be the same as at the junior and senior level (after transfer student intake).</p>

<p>* I’m so old that when I was in college (late 60’s) most kids (at least at Bucknell) actually ate in the dining halls and spent little time or money off campus.
My friends and I never once went out to eat (not even pizza), unless someone’s parents were visiting. I was thinking about this issue recently and wondering how my current teenagers (all adopted) will fare in college with much less than average spending money. We are Pell-eligible and it will be difficult enough just to pay for absolute essentials (none of them are outstanding students, so I’m sure they won’t be going to colleges that give super aid).*</p>

<p>That is the common issue today. Yes, back in our day, kids didn’t have the money to eat off-campus that much. And, there weren’t as many off-campus choices back then, either. Now, colleges are literally surrounded by restaurants and bars. </p>

<p>There was a mom who posted about a year ago. She was a single mom, no help from dad, who was stretching herself to cover the “family contribution” so her D could attend her “dream school.” The mom began posting about how angry her D was at her for not providing enough spending money because all her friends had “designer clothes, purses, and lots of pocket money”. (Some here may remember this thread.)</p>

<p>There are a lot of deep-pocket kids on campus. Many of them have pricey cars! wow.</p>

<p>I don’t know … I think this is often a case of people finding what they are looking for.</p>

<p>Are there kids who live it up at highly selective private schools … sure. But lots of students with money and without live the starving student lifestyle most of the time. I would think all schools would have the same issue where some students are spending a ton and lots aren’t. The selective private schools catch flack for this a lot on CC but to me it seems other schools are structurally set-up to exasperate this difference. </p>

<p>If it were a concern of mine … I’d check

  • The level of financial aid support and of Pell Grant recipients … a school that does not meet need will likely skew upper middle class.
  • Does housing have upscale options that segment students by wealth
  • Is the greek life or other options expensive that again segment the students by wealth.
  • Etc.</p>

<p>My oldest went to school in Manhattan which is often mentioned as a place to avoid because it is too expensive. She and her friends became the masters of the $15 theater trip (tickets and food) … Manhattan, if you know what you are doing, can also be an incredibly inexpensive place to do great stuff.</p>

<p>I was at Cornell about a million years ago and there were a couple frats and a couple sororities that fit the description that is raising the concerns in this thread … that was a couple hundred students out of 10,000+ undergrads. I found it easy to find students from all kinds of backgrounds that were happy with the starving student life style.</p>

<p>I</p>

<p>The level of financial aid support and of Pell Grant recipients … a school that does not meet need will likely skew upper middle class</p>

<p>Even the schools that meet need are an issue.</p>

<p>A couple of years ago, the president at Amherst was expressing his concern that his low-income students didn’t “have” what his other students have. He wished he could provide a clothing allowance, etc. He even wished he could fund their parents for Parents Weekend (and provide nice clothes for those events as well). </p>

<p>He felt this way because of the feedback he was getting was that low income kids struggle with issue of being a “have not” amongst a good number of “haves”.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The schools that meet need are mostly the most selective schools that end up with higher SES students because the higher SES students have had access to better K-12 education to gain the credentials for admission to the most selective schools.</p>

<p>We aren’t eligible for Pell, not low-income. But the only spending money D has for college is what she earns during her breaks. If she has time to work on campus, she’ll have that money too. She is expected to pay for all her school needs not directly billed to us by university. She has no fancy clothes. H did get her a new laptop for college, though, one unnecessary purchase. She has a 3.5 yo iphone3 because too lazy to go get an upgrade. For our family, doing it because it seems fair and character building for her to be required to contribute and learn the value of things. I’m not opposed to people spending lots of money freely, but it won’t happen for my D unless she earns enough herself to spend that way.</p>

<p>Listening to her impressions after various campus visits, and reading student reviews of various schools myself, I do get the idea that while every school will have some really rich kids, some schools have an especially pervasive flaunting-the-money type atmosphere. It’s tough on most kids whose parents either can’t or won’t give the kid enough money/stuff to feel a part of the free-spending atmosphere at these schools, and even can be difficult at schools where it’s more subdued. </p>

<p>There are kids who can let that wash off them and not mind so much. Either they really don’t care for it and find like-minded friends, or understand that they need to survive without always being dragged down by bad feelings about having less than some other students and manage to block those feelings. </p>

<p>I would say my kids notice and feel bad, even my HS junior, since we live in a community with huge variance in incomes and lifestyles so that he’s exposed to it already on a daily basis. Some kids driving their new Mercedes to school and others destitute. We’re in between, but eccentrically for Americans, spending way below our means, except for select purchases.</p>

<p>It’s something kids should consider when choosing a school, if they know they will be bothered by this to the point they are miserable. Kids end up transferring out sometimes because it’s just too much for them.</p>

<p>Something else to consider is if the student’s attitude toward money has already been shaped by previous upbringing and experiences. Some students, by the time they enter college, have a frugality bias, while others are more spendy until they actually run out of money. Attitudes toward non-essential or status symbol spending may also have been formed by that time.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps look at whether these frugal spending habits have formed a positive impression on your kid (e.g. if he tends to wonder why other people spend so much money in apparently wasteful ways) or a negative impression on him (e.g. if he feels somehow deprived by these frugal spending habits).</p>

<p>To me it is good preparation for the “real world”. If your high school and town are pretty homogenous then at some point you need to be exposed to the reality that there are people who have more than you and people who have less. It’s a good time to develop some pride in who you are and the confidence to be true to your own values. The kids will have to do this at some point in their lives. Perhaps they are too sheltered these days? I too was on financial aid when I went to college and was so amazed at the wealth of other students - they came from wealthy towns, went to fancy private schools, spent summers in Europe etc. I was *grateful *my parents scrimped to send me there to get a great education.
The advantage to a big city is that there are always lots of low or no-cost options available as well as expensive options.</p>

<p>This kid has been a poor(er) kid in an upscale school district already so having a lot less than her classmates is nothing new. I think she’d be OK with that in college.</p>

<p>What would be rough would be having educational and social options severely limited, or being literally the ONLY poor kid in a wealthy school. I imagine neither of these are likely scenarios.</p>

<p>I wonder how this plays out in the co-op universities where all students work for pay 2-3x over the course of college.</p>

<p>My son went to a rural college and found his day to day expenses to be minimal. There was simply very little to spend on. Almost all students lived on campus four years. Clothes were uniformly democratic (fleece, jeans, boots). Social activities were either free or subsidized. Same for outdoorsy activities. Within his close group there was a wide range in family income and the amount of available cash; generally it was understood that if one couldn’t afford it, they didn’t do it. </p>

<p>There were a few flaunters – fancy cars, fancy toys – but they were rare. Money was so little a part of the daily rhythm of things that my son was actually shocked to find out later that some of this classmates had outrageously wealthy families. It just wasn’t discussed.</p>