<p>^^^But the school only has a snapshot of a given family’s ability to pay. They have no idea if Grandma and Grandpa can pay 20k plus per year. Or if Mom or Dad will be coming into a large inheritance - either now or five years from now when all those loans are in repay.</p>
<p>There are a lot of inadequacies in the financial aid system. And it’s not the college’s position to be a financial adviser. Nor should it be - you can only protect people so much from themselves. People sometimes make numbskull decisions. You can’t outlaw stupidity. </p>
<p>Wouldn’t be surprised if the first option were the most common – let the students and parents figure out the cost after the offered financial aid. Certainly, this is true for the many state universities which give poor financial aid even to their in-state students (e.g. those in Pennsylvania).</p>
<p>I think people DO know; when you’re low income, how can you NOT know that taking out loans that are the equivalent of several times your yearly income is unaffordable? I think many are gambling that education is the way out of poverty, and an expensive education is the fast track out. Unfotunately, too many end up on the losing end. </p>
<p>This thread makes me think of the “am I responsible for my roommate?” thread, namely her roommate. If you apply to a school, and you are accepted, and you are given an FA package, and you KNOW it will not be enough - WHY would you go there?</p>
<p>It’s sad and all, but the only circumstance I can see having more than a tiny bit of sympathy for these cases would be if the family’s financial situation changed a lot, due to a parent losing their job or the death of a parent.</p>
<p>Otherwise, I’m not that sympathetic. And I do not see any reason to reach out to the dean or president of a university to outline “I made a stupid choice, and it is your fault I don’t get logic”.</p>
<p>It’s not that simple as that. Not too long ago, NYU was found by then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of being one of the colleges notoriously involved in steering students towards loans from which it shared revenues with the lending banks. </p>
<p>In that aspect, NYU was more like the predatory banks which mislead certain classes of mortgage borrowers and deliberately advised them to take out loans they couldn’t afford for the purpose of earning higher commissions and higher interest payments when they fall short. </p>
<p>And one wonders why some students say “my parents won’t let me take out a loan”.</p>
<p>You don’t buy a BMW if you can’t afford it. Even if you really want one. Even if it was your life’s dream to own one.</p>
<p>And on that note, one thing some students don’t get is that no one is forcing you to go to college three months after you graduate high school. You can work for a few years and then go. You can even get a job at the university of your choice, and start taking classes there under the employee tuition remission plan.</p>
<p>I didnt have my D look at her dream school, because while they met full need, transportation to & from & around the city would have put us over our budget.</p>
<p>You might remember she wanted to transfer sophomore year, but she decided to stick it out and she ended up quite satisfied. Plus she should be pleased that she has relatively small debt. (-$8,000)</p>
<p>When hubris gets in the way of what is practical and reasonable, I don’t think you can blame the seller for making an attractive product.</p>
<p>Technically, you can make the same argument regarding the mortgage borrowers who were steered into borrowing on terms which effectively set them up for falling short. However, that point completely ignores the fact the bankers in that case…like NYU in that loan revenue sharing case had a fundamental conflict of interest which illustrated they bore a fair chunk of responsibility for dubiously unethical…if not possibly illegal practices. </p>
<p>It’s also interesting to ponder the question of responsibility if most/all of the information which an individual based his/her decision on was based mostly/completely on seriously erroneous and misleading information beyond mere puffery provided by lenders/higher ed institutions to further their own financial interests. </p>
<p>In both cases, the banks and universities involved like NYU were investigated and forced to end those dubious practices which was a conflict of interest to their benefit and to the disservice of average unsophisticated borrowers…including some students. </p>
<p>While this type of behavior shouldn’t come too much of a surprise if it’s coming from a bank, it certainly does feel beyond the pale when an educational institution is also an active player in this dubiously unethical practice bordering on illegality. </p>
<p>Many people have gone through their entire lives borrowing and repaying for everything, so it makes sense that the student (and family) just assumes they will borrow for college and it will get repaid. Many families borrow for everything - a home and cars, of course, but also for carpets and vacations and the saxophone when the child hits 5th grade. They always owe $3000 or so on their credit cards. The family has money coming in, but spends it all for current needs. Sports and lessons, vacations not Europe, but plenty of Disney and the beach.</p>
<p>The problem is proportions. It’s one thing to borrow $4000 for carpets or an emergency car repair, but that gets paid off over the year. The college borrowing is more, and it doesn’t get paid off before you have to borrow again the next year. And you still need carpets and the emergency car repairs.</p>
<p>This girl at NYU had the sense not to borrow when her money ran out, but she just wasn’t planning long term. I do think she thought that after she spent the savings, NYU would consider her ‘poor’ and then fund the rest of her education, and for some reason she felt NYU owed her.</p>
<p>It’s not like NYU has a reputation for being stingy or anything.
Frankly, I had never heard of it until 15 years ago, when a teacher I worked with in Seattle, was very excited that her daughter was accepted with a merit award. Then two years later, the teacher, who was a single mother, died of brain cancer, and left a small inheritance that NYU expected the daughter to spend for tuition.
She declined.</p>
<p>And I do make that argument about those mortgage borrowers.</p>
<p>Now, I do believe that student loan debt should be treated like regular debt (dischargeable). Then lenders would have to do due diligence about whether someone was actually credit-worthy. Though if they weren’t, tough luck; no opportunity for college (at least that college).</p>
<p>^It’s ironic that we have no problem with a bank being “need-aware”, but that an admissions committee has to somehow maintain a pristine and somehow sublime ignorance of what it would cost - both the applicant and college - were they to be admitted in the first place.</p>
<p>^^^I think we’ll see that Ivory Tower attitude/facade falling away from adcoms as applicants become increasingly reluctant to mortgage their futures. Parents I know are more and more inclined to call colleges and give them “their best offer.” People are using the same language they use when they buy a house or car. A change in the folks with whom these negotiators are speaking can not be far behind.</p>
<p>^It’s ironic that we have no problem with a bank being “need-aware”, but that an admissions committee has to somehow maintain a pristine and somehow sublime ignorance of what it would cost - both the applicant and college - were they to be admitted in the first place.</p>
<p>We found colleges without CC. As Ds are first gen, that’s no mean feat, but still manageable.
Families need to get their head out of the clouds and quit thinking those acceptances to schools that are need blind are like Christmas.
What the heck does need blind matter if school doesn’t meet 100% need/ or you can’t afford your EFC?
The only private school D applied to was need aware, BUT they met 100% need.</p>
<h1>93, who would qualify for ANY student loan if he had to qualify? Most 17 and 18 year olds can’t qualify for a credit card with a $1000 limit, so who is going to give that student $5500? The students who can qualify probably don’t need the loans as they have stock portfolios and cars and other things to use as collateral.</h1>
<p>If even private loans required better credit underwriting than they have now, and they would if the loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy, few would qualify and the rates would be much higher. Banks have to answer to inspectors and auditors, and it doesn’t make good business sense to make unsecured loans at low rates (and anything below 10% is a low rate). Many banks have stopped making student loans because it just isn’t a profitable program.</p>
<p>Well, that’s the thing: People are complaining about schools giving kids too much nondischargeable loans and ruining their lives, but would they like an alternative world? In that world, kids wouldn’t get those loans to begin with. They don’t get the choice.</p>
<p>You can’t have both, yet some people seem to live in a dream world where NYU gives grants instead of loans to poor(er) kids, maintains the quality that it currently has, and has a magical money spigot that makes that all possible. Or maybe they want NYU to drop down in quality/appeal (though that might not actually improve NYU’s finances), but why would NYU want to do that? It’s a private institution, after all, and can do whatever it wants.</p>
<p>If their goal was to attract the academic stars who also come from lower-income backgrounds, they can raise their academic rep and improve their standing by providing full scholarships where merit & need are considered. This way, they get the topflight students and improve their SES diversity instead of continuing to lose them to the very elite Us they aspire to join. </p>
<p>NYU’s marketing has been so wildly successful that combined with NYC being the “IT” location*, NYU can probably pull that off while continuing to attract loads of well-off comfortably full-pay students…including those with topflight stats as one commenter on this thread has noted who are enamored with NYU/NYC. </p>
<ul>
<li>NYU’s main campus location in the Village is one major draw…and one which has caused even some Columbia undergrad/grad students to feel jealous. While Morningside Heights has its own charm, the Village is more centrally located where college-aged/young professionals want to be if they want to be close to vibrant areas and/or be nearby others…like Williamsburg or Brooklyn Heights.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>While NYU’s location might be more central, I don’t think it can hold a candle to Columbia’s campus. NYU’s “campus” is undefined and so spread out, while you walk through the gates to Columbia and you are in a secret garden of sorts. I love the symmetry of Columbia’s campus. </p>