<p>I thought it was interesting that only 20% of middle class and affluent students attend private colleges. Clearly, the CC membership is very different from the norm. Another interesting point not reflected by CC: Most students pay 1/3 of their college tuition costs, using loans, jobs, and savings.</p>
<p>NEW YORK (AP) -- Even if a student plans on a major where the financial rewards aren't so obvious, such as art history or philosophy, most American families don't factor in their child's expected earning power when considering the potential debt load for college.</p>
<p>That's according to a study released Wednesday by student lender Sallie Mae, which also found 40 percent of families don't limit their search for a school based on the total expense....</p>
<p>The study also found that lower-income families use more grants and scholarships, while middle-income families rely slightly more heavily on borrowing, and more affluent families tap more savings and income.
Lower-income families were defined as households earning between $35,000 and $50,000. Middle-income families were defined as households earning $50,000 to $100,000 a year. Higher-income families were defined as earning more than $100,000....</p>
<p>The higher borrowing by some middle-class families may be a result of their reaching to pay for pricier schools. Despite their moderate incomes, middle-class students reported attending private four-year universities at nearly the same rate as more affluent students (20 percent, compared to 22 percent).</p>
<p>Only 22% of affluent students students attend private universities? Guess that's why they're affluent! No seriously, though, I think most cc'ers are going to disagree with calling $100,000 "affluent".</p>
<p>Interesting. In our family we've definitely considered financial impact both when considering schools and careers. We’re a two parent working family and make good salaries that, of course, make us ineligible for financial aid. I don't know what region of the country could define a higher income family as a family making $100,000 but in sure doesn't seem like a good break point salary for higher income where I live. We had some money saved for our first daughter but none for our second so we’ll definitely need to borrow. This has absolutely been factored into our decision making. Both daughters have chosen future careers that, hopefully, will pay a good salary. These future career choices were definitely chosen with interest in mind and not potential future income. </p>
<p>One daughter is already in college at a large public university and has already done research and participated in 2 National Science Foundation research internship projects...one paid, one volunteer and she has completed a 6 month paid (decent compensation with housing costs paid) at a large pharmaceutical company. Initially she applied to 7 schools and was accepted to all with academic money offered at all schools. The public school offered the least but her top choices of the privates did not offer enough to make them financially affordable without a whole bunch of borrowed money.</p>
<p>Daughter 2 will soon be a senior in high school. She will take the same approach and will apply to lots of schools and definitely cost will be a factor in her decision. I’m sure she’ll receive more generous offers, however, than my first daughter. </p>
<p>I think that students who are considering math/science majors and future careers have a broader choice when choosing colleges. The large public research universities often have more opportunities for research and internships. My younger daughter is considering a career in health sciences (pharmacy, dentistry or medical) and two of our large public schools have all three schools connected with the universities. </p>
<p>I’ve suggested to both daughters to apply wherever they want but to remember that they would probably do well wherever they go. They both “get” this so we’ll wait and see what pans out for my younger daughter. </p>
<p>Since both of my children are math/science types I have no experience in the search for a good liberal arts college. It seems from reading these boards that it is a more difficult process because there are great differences in liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>Most people whom I know who are well off, apparent incomes far above $100 k, have kids who happily go off to public universities. From what I've seen, most students want to go to public universities, particularly large ones with great sports teams.</p>
<p>Most people don't go to college for the intellectual stimulation. They go in order to punch a ticket to get a good job, and to enjoy what many believe will be the best years of their lives. Being accepted by a college with great sports and great parties is many people's dream.</p>
<p>Neither of my kids went to schools with great sports teams. I think most colleges have great parties if that is what you are seeking. Both of my kids looked for colleges with very specific courses of study at them (DS graduated with a degree in his and DD is currently pursuing hers). I'm not sure they even knew what sports teams were at their college when they applied.</p>
<p>Re: $100K being high income...well....I think it really can be. BUT look at the college finaid initiatives being taken by some of the higher profile, select schools. They are offering very reduced or free tuition to students who have family incomes below $150K...so maybe times are changing. Of course those schools do have huge endowments to support that...but they were recognizing that finances played a part in the matriculation of students in this income range.</p>
<p>I always wonder about the "party" school rankings of schools. My daughter goes to a big Football/party school but it most certainly was not her reason to choose the school. I doubt she is the exception and she is interested in intellectual stimulation along with a great college experience. In fact, since football tickets sold out within the first 3 minutes this year she doesn't even have them for next year. She's disappointed because her friends have tickets but truthfully doesn't care that much. </p>
<p>I remember freshman orientation when the parents were separately lectured and told that they would not be "protected" by campus police if they were caught drinking and they would definitely be fined and would need to suffer the consequences. The students were given the same lecture and there are definitely students arrested. Fortunately my daughter was not one of them! Contrast this to a friend's daughter who drank too much her first year at an elite, small Liberal Arts college. Everything was hush/hush as she was protected when she was ushered to the hospital for medical treatment when she became sick from consuming too much alcohol. I'm guessing, however, that for surveys the party atmosphere at this small school is underreported by both the school and it's students. I think that "partying" happens at all schools.....of course where there are big football games and lots of people more parties are there...especially if there is a big alumni crowd involved. </p>
<p>I do think that many students go for a combination of intellectual stimulation and 4 fun filled happy years and not primarily for football and partying.</p>
<p>What I see with the parents/kids around here IRL that is different from CC:
-- Most students stay closer to home. Most students choose schools they already know.<br>
-- Many, many students choose schools because of a course of study (as another poster has mentioned.) Here on CC, I have seen posts that actually talk about this as if it is to be discouraged -- "Don't pick your school because of a certain department or major!" While it is true that many children change their minds, I think for some of them it helps them to focus their college search by having career paths in mind.</p>
<p>As to the lower 1/3, middle 1/3, and upper 1/3, I wouldn't be surprised if the income demographis of the college family population cut close to those lines, as even though a great number of households the country earn less than $50K, they are disproportionately underrepresented in the college student population, where as with households over $100K, the vast majority of those children end up in college. So for practical purposes, it is probably a reasonable way to look at the college family population.</p>
<p>Even among "affluent" families, CC is not representative. I live in an area where NSM's stats do not hold as so many of the schools, private and public, have their kids going on to college. However, even among families who have the money, and who may have sent their kids to private schools, the norm here are the local schools. For kids graduating from the catholic schools the big list has the 3 local catholic schools with Fordham being the most selective, and the list also includes Pace which is a private uni that is not very selective and has a lot of commuters and part timers, and the community college. Maybe a CUNY and a SUNY or two thrown in there if the family is more adventuresome. It is a true minority that venture into the world of private colleges or anything more than an hour away.</p>
<p>"Higher-income families were defined as earning more than $100,000.... " - This standard must not be very current. Range $100,000 - $150,000 is hardly a high income for today's expenses. </p>
<p>In regard to Private school selection, there is good number of applicants that do not select college based on the image / prestige. My D. was accepted to a private college that gave her Merit Scholarships lowering her tuition from $31,000 down to $5,000 / year. This did not influence her decision. She has chosen to attend a public school and very happy about her choice. Image / prestige was never considered in her decision, neither was cost, since she got significant merit $$ at every school that she applied. There is significant % of applicants from well to do and educated families who are looking for a good match rather than Private or elite type of school.</p>
<p>having attended a fairly 'typical' american high school, the conclusions presented above arent exactly surprising. for others, it probably is important to keep an open mind about all that constitutes a 'private' college, however. </p>
<p>only five students in my graduating class chose to attend (by cc standards) somewhat selective private colleges, two of them top 50 lacs and one a borderline top 50 national university. a couple headed to places like juniata and duquesne. but a majority of those headed the private route, including two that chose selective schools, chose colleges with a similar theme: strong religious affiliation. the local catholic school (avg sat: 1030) got a few kids, as did a decidedly baptist school (avg sat: 1040) a few hours away. heck, the student travelling the furthest for college chose a very religious school in georgia. </p>
<p>was there any consistent economic theme among those attending private schools? well, four of the five choosing selective ones were likely at least borderline affluent per the $100,000 newsweek definition. but those choosing less selective religious schools seemed a bit more diverse. im not sure how the numbers would have broken down, but many seemed to be decidedly middle class. in that light, the 20% to 22% breakdowns seem about right.</p>
<p>We are looking at that slice of families with college aged children. That eliminates most of the elderly households and younger families. </p>
<p>Though $100-150K is affluent, a family who makes that kind of money who lives in a neighborhood with good schools, decent cars, amenities, is going to have a stretch to pay full freight for 2-3 kids at private colleges. Especially if such family is giving kids music lessons, summer camp, braces, funding a pension plan, seeing doctors regularly. Throw in a high rent area, and only a few years at that income level, and it would be very difficult to qualify for enough aid to make it possible to go private unless the kids go to a very generous school or get a lot of merit money.Otherwise it is loans for parents and kids alike.</p>
<p>No seriously, though, I think most cc'ers are going to disagree with calling $100,000 "affluent".
I would agree & actually even though we make less, our areas inflation eats up so much that you aren't buying many wants with 100K, just maybe shop at better grocery stores.
That is one thing I can't bring myself to skimp on. I would rather eat fewer meals, than use less quality ingredients. Location</a> plays role in how groceries are priced</p>
<p>"Higher-income families were defined as earning more than $100,000.... " - This standard must not be very current. Range $100,000 - $150,000 is hardly a high income for today's expenses.</p>
<p>The definition of a high-income family has nothing to do with a families expenses, it has to do with a families income in relation to other families. The median household income in the US is still less than 50k per year, so a family making 100k is making DOUBLE the median. It doesn't matter what their expenses are, they are still making double the median.</p>
<p>As for the OP and the article you linked to, it's obvious from what we see here on CC that college-aged kids in general have very unrealistic expectations as to their future earnings. And the maze of financial aid and income cut-offs and scholarships etc make it pretty difficult for many to navigate the complexities of what college is truly going to cost.</p>
<p>I know that I can't afford the payments on a 100k car. But if I could walk in and get the 100k car for 25k, well, now it's in my price range. Selecting and paying for college functions very differently than buying a car or a home.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The definition of a high-income family has nothing to do with a families expenses, it has to do with a families income in relation to other families.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But when you think of it in terms of your families income in relation to other families at a given school suddenly we have a very different picture of income and wealth. If a school gives financial aid to families making $150K per year, and 50% of their students receive no aid at all, well, those in the $100-150K range are no longer upper income. It's not just CC that is skewed, it's most all of the top colleges.</p>
<p>I guess I'm lucky that I live in a Midwestern city with a high standard of living... here $50,000 per year can get you a decent middle class existence if you're a smaller family and don't rack up debt by trying to live beyond your means (sorry, not everyone gets to own a house where everybody gets their own bedroom... and not everyone can drive a Lexus). I'm an only child to a single parent earning roughly $60,000, and we get along fine. We don't have much debt, and we don't live beyond our means (though my mom does drive the Lexus, haha). </p>
<p>Anyway, I do emphasize with those who can't afford their dream school, but Americans as a whole need to acknowledge the fact that life isn't fair to everybody. We also need to realize that there is a fine education to be had public, low cost schools, and that instead of moping about not getting into their dream college, students should be encouraged to work hard so that their kids can go to the dream school. The feeling is just as rewarding as if you got to go yourself, so I'm told.</p>
<p>One intended result of colleges basing aid on a family's EFC is just what the thread title says - take financial differences out of the picture and let the student choose based on the characterstics of each school.</p>
<p>That's a perfect world, of course. Many families find their EFC is unaffordable, schools offer different amounts and types of aid, etc., so in reality there ARE major differences between schools.</p>
<p>I think the key factor in the decision is weighing the student's ability to pay after graduation and the difference in likely future paths vs. the difference in cost. Is it worth an extra $30K to get that CompSci degree from CMU? I'd make that decision in seconds. On the other hand, I heard a discussion of this study on the news - one commentator noted that he had just encountered a recent grad who took on $150K in debt to get a Masters in Sociology, and is now employed as a case worker. That's a really bad situation, and someone with some financial sense should have talked to that student. Debt isn't real to most 18 year olds - it's VERY real to new grads who have to start paying it, and to older grads who are still paying it a decade later.</p>
<p>Given how many posts I've seen on CC from parents who feel badly that their kids will have to take out loans, I thought this part of the article was very interesting: "Most students pay 1/3 of their college tuition costs, using loans, jobs, and savings."</p>
<p>To me, it's normal that kids pay part of their college costs since, after all, they are the ones going to college. I didn't feel burdened by having to take out loans and work to pay part of my undergrad expenses (I was responsible for all of my grad school expenses). My sons never indicated that they have felt burdened by having to pay part of their college costs.</p>
<p>What has surprised me has been to see that they have peers -- some of whose parents appear to make less than our family makes -- who don't have to take out any loans or work even during the summer.</p>