<p>I think that part of where it got sideways for me was the implication (maybe not explicit, but it felt like tone or maybe just omission) that families who have not saved large chunks of money are living way above their means rather than just living.</p>
<p>On another note, it does seem to be true that Profile aid is a bit “capricious” and is part of the admissions process more than we’d like to think. Schools are allowed to express their institutional philosophies and needs through their aid packages. Even with the best intentions and knowing your “number” ahead you still don’t know how they will interpret your financial profile viv-a-vis your child’s academic and social attributes. OP thought the school in question loved their D more than it felt like after the package came out. </p>
<p>However, there was another thread awhile I was looking at last week where a kid received a package from Earlham that most adults thought looked pretty good and the kid was not feeling the love. Some of that was misunderstanding about how aid works and it seemed that some of that was a distorted perception of how special he was compared to other students. </p>
<p>In the end, who knows. It is tough, though, to always have to temper things with “She’s admitted to schools a,b,c and d . . . but we’re still waiting on aid packages so we don’t really know anything.”</p>
<p>Okay, so “capricious” was the word of the day on my “A Word a Day” email. “Unpredictable” is part of it (when I hear “capricious,” I usually think “whimsical” and “impulsive” first). So I agree that word makes sense; although the words “recondite” or “abstruse” (or just “opaque”) are more apt, I think, since the Profile-using schools probably do not think their methods are capricious; they just aren’t willing to share the recipe for their secret sauce. </p>
<p>If you ask me, it is a nice-sized loophole that lets a well-to-do doctor’s kid go to school with a full-aid package. But if the doctor is not legally the custodial parent and if the NCP’s information is not asked for, what is the doctor going to do? Say he or she is the custodial parent if, legally, he or she isn’t? Pay anyway? Who would do that? “No one” is who!</p>
<p>I have an example of an “inequity,” if you will, that affects me. My daughter has been receiving survivor benefits from social security due to her father’s death when she was a toddler. Those benefits are not captured anywhere on FAFSA or Profile. One of the schools my D applied to asked for that information on a school-specific form, and I supplied it. I didn’t offer that information when it wasn’t asked for. I suppose it gives me an “advantage” over someone else who has an AGI similar to mine, if you can call raising a child as a widow advantageous. </p>
<p>I do understand how difficult it is to have a child admitted to a school but to have to wait on aid to see if it’s going to work out in the end.</p>
<p>I guess I don’t know a better way to make the system fair. I see why more schools are using the profile to get a “real” picture of where a family stands. I don’t know if that is good or bad as we haven’t had to fill one out yet but will for the next one off to college. You can even just go back to my East Coast/Rural Kansas example and see the inequity of the system. The higher incomes needed to live in major cities on the East coast pretty much preclude people from getting aid, even though they are not living lavish lifestyles. Unless I have missed something, there is not cost of living adjustment on the form to take this into account.</p>
<p>The thing is, in exchange for the high cost of living, you were buying the privilege of not living in rural Kansas. The extra money you pay to live in a major metro area in the NE is not picked from your pocket. You’re getting all kinds of value from being there. You’re surrounded by resources, conveniences, culture. It’s just a more interesting, enriching place to live. That’s why it’s expensive – a lot of people want to enjoy all those benefits and are willing to pay for them.</p>
<p>Most people in the NE who have the option of moving to Kansas (doctors and retirees, for example) don’t do it. That tells you there isn’t really an inequity here. People are paying the right price for the benefits they get in each location. I don’t know if there’s ANY cost-of-living discount that would persuade some of us to live in rural Kansas, even with an ideal job.</p>
<p>Joking? Things cost what they cost because people think they are worth it. If that’s not true, then the people living in the NE are fools. They’re throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars.</p>
<p>that is exactly right…I find it odd how when the “savers” here post anything negative about the system, they are quickly jumped on. The simple fact is that far too many people who make very good incomes choose the bigger house, nicer car instead of living a little below there means and being able to save a whole lot more.</p>
<p>What drives me up a wall is the notion that savers are unduly penalized. If I had zero savings, my EFC would be approximately $2K less than it is with the college savings I do have. If I had saved four times what I have, it would be about $8.5K more than my current EFC and about $10K more than if I had saved zero. If I had an extra $150K saved, I wouldn’t mind forking over an additional $8.5K per year for my kid’s education because, guess what? I could afford it. And I wouldn’t begrudge the person who, with my same income, is paying $10K less per year. In the grand scheme of themes, really?</p>
<p>“My daughter has been receiving survivor benefits from social security due to her father’s death when she was a toddler. Those benefits are not captured anywhere on FAFSA or Profile.”</p>
<p>I do believe those benefits are to be listed on the CSS profile.</p>
<p>And as I stated before, higher incomes go hand in hand with higher cost of living areas.</p>
<p>Nope, CSS Profile does not require that information for the student. Here’s what it says:</p>
<p>“Enter the untaxed social security benefits your parents received or expect to receive for all family members except you, the student, in 2011.”</p>
<p>You have to enter if you have other kids at home getting the benefit, but not for the student for whom you are filling out the form.</p>
<p>It seems to me that not saving is a gamble. You may end up being able to game the system with larger FA and merit awards, or you may find yourself with severely narrowed options once the offers come in. Unfortunately there’s no way to know which camp you’ll fall into until it’s too late to do much of anything about it. To say parents haven’t been warned about the cost of college seems to me to be a bit silly considering the ample information out there on the rising cost of a college education.</p>
<p>Probably not. Part of the whole “flyover country” idea that there isn’t anything worthwhile between each coast. Yes, there are those who still live in the bubble and think that. Even some on the west coast (until Oklahoma City made off with our NBA team).</p>
<p>The simple fact is that far too many people who make very good incomes choose the bigger house, nicer car instead of living a little below there means and being able to save a whole lot more.</p>
<p>Then you also have families who made the “very good income” only the last year after a whole lot of overtime. Maybe they didn’t save that money for college, but finally fixed the roof that has been needing it for 25 years, & updated their knob & tube wiring.( Well actually haven’t gotten to the wiring yet).</p>
<p>Should they have the same EFC as families who have made 6 figures for the past 30 years & have managed to accumulate 7 figures in investments & savings?</p>
<p>Hey, I live in flyover country. If New Yorkers are paying five times more for their homes than Oklahomans, and they don’t believe they are getting five times the value, then they are what PT Barnum called suckers. A lot of my neighbors do indeed think those folks are suckers. If everybody agreed that the big NE metro areas offered good value, then even more people would move there. Some people think it’s a ripoff, and we live elsewhere.</p>
<p>Very few Americans truly have no choice about where we live.</p>
<p>Yes emerald kitty, after 20 years in the work force our families AGI had finally reached 6 figures. SteveMA is saying that over 20 years of working we should easliy have 500,000 in retirement with just that 5 percent match. That totally ignores that fact that we started out making 26,000 and worked our way very slowly upwards. It’s a long, long way off from someone who has made 100,000 for the last 20 years. And the bulk of our retirement assets were gained working for a company who did not match contributions.</p>
<p>Some people are living in NYC because that’s just where their industry offers jobs. Yes, they do enjoy the culture the city provides but there are trade-offs.</p>
<p>I had my introduction to NYC real estate years ago when DH and I visited his boss in the city. She and her husband were both working professionals, and she made considerably more money than DH, so I was shocked to see that they lived with their two kids in a cramped 2 bedroom condo. At the time we were living in a comfortable 4 bedroom single family home on a half acre in a suburb of Boston. That same year a friend bought a home in a Kansas-like state for less than we’d paid. His house was almost twice the size of ours and came with a pool and 20 acres. So who, if anyone, is living beyond their means, and who is more deserving of FA-the high income family in NYC, the pool and 20 acres family in Kansas or the middle of the road family in the Boston suburbs? I don’t have an answer, but I offer the question for discussion.</p>
<p>Highbury–your $16,000 is $10,000 more than we started with…even at a 5% match at $26,000 over the past 20 years should be in the $100,000 range for a retirement fund assuming no increase in pay over 20 years even.</p>
<p>Another thing to consider is even if you don’t have the savings set aside, having the funds on a month to month basis after 20+ years in the work forces is entirely possible especially if you have lived within your means through those years, expenses/debt are low, etc. In many areas of the country if you bought a house 20 years ago, heck even 10 years ago, have a house payment in the $500-1000/month range and no real debt, maybe a car payment or something, coming up with $1000/month for college isn’t out of the realm of possibility. If your child takes a Fed loan, maybe gets a little merit aid, maybe not, works over the summers, most state schools are completely affordable.</p>
<p>So who, if anyone, is living beyond their means, and who is more deserving of FA-the high income family in NYC, the pool and 20 acres family in Kansas or the middle of the road family in the Boston suburbs?</p>
<p>I believe the MA & NY families may enjoy a very slight allowance for their states cost of living over the Kansas family.</p>
<p>Where we live is a choice, just as what industry we choose to work in.</p>
<p>Why is it that some families can’t pay their EFC while others do?</p>