<p>There are limits on Stafford loans as I posted earlier- if the schools lowered tuition, what level do you think they would have to go to, in order for a student who qualifies for Pell, to be able to cover it with a government backed low interest loan?</p>
<p>What my Ds aid package consisted of- hardly all grants-
maximum Stafford loan x 4
maximum Perkins offered x4
workstudy hours x4
grant for the rest
As we could not afford her EFC out of savings and income, she contributed all of her summer earnings- about $3,100 x4
We also refinanced our house to pay the rest of the EFC.
Obviously we are * not* poor, since we have a house to refinance- but increasing our mortgage payment- was not on our list of things to do before retirement :p</p>
<p>I would remind those thinking the poor have it made- that even at schools that meet 100% of need- need is met with grants-loans and work study.</p>
<p>Some schools meet need with unsubsidized loans and even their own private loans- so those who are "not middle class" are likely not going to be getting some great deal that you think you are missing out on- but are paying the same price that those families who can afford to pay for tuition out of savings or earnings are paying.</p>
<p>Why don't they take the same loans as the middle-class is forced to do if they want the same choices?</p>
<p>Possibly because they do not have the same resources as " the middle class" to pay back those loans
If you read the graduation thread on the parent board, you will read about several whose gift at graduation is to pay off their childrens loans.</p>
<p>Except in unusual circumstances, most families who fall in the category of what many would consider middle class- would not find paying off their kids school loans to be an option.</p>
<p>I haven't had my earlier question answered.
I will restate it-
From the answers given re:
EFC, from a variety of posters on CC, I have concluded that EFC is often 1/3 to 1/4th of before tax income.
Our own EFC was 1/4th of our income.</p>
<p>What percentage of before tax income would be "fair" for EFC?</p>
<p>Actually, in another thread somebody posted a breakdown of the income level of families of students at Amherst College. As I recall, there was a conspicuous hole in the middle.</p>
<p>link?</p>
<p>or are you referring to Minis data supporting Amherst being characterized as "preppy"?</p>
<p>He also said that 48% of Amherst students received some aid, and that the remaining students came from families who made over $200,000.</p>
<p>In what world would families making $200,000 characterized as "middle class? If $200K, is * middle* then the average family in the US making $60,000 would be "poor"?</p>
<p>Not according to the US gov.
Their poverty threshold is about $19,000 in 2003 for a family of four.
Using those measures a family of four making $200,000 and ineligible for aid at Amherst, wouldn't be middle class.</p>
<p>I would have to agree that EFC "can" roughly be 1/4 of a parents/student income combined. For me and my mother, it was actually lower, 17k out of a combined total of before tax of 98k, but it would be 1/4 after taxes</p>
<p>In my own mind, the ideal scenario would be to eliminate all forms of aid based on need, use those funds saved to lower tuition for everyone, and then offer low-interest, long-term loans (think 3% over 60 years type terms) to all students regardless of need.</p>
<p>Possible? Maybe, maybe not, but it might eliminate the perception of unfairness that plagues this process by "leveling the playing field" among the low-income, middle-class and upper-class children of parents who won't pay. It would also eliminate the complex EFC evaluation process and potential for fraud on the system.</p>
<p>this thread seems to be void of actual students, only parents are debating. This isn't something any parents is obliged to pay, it is rather something the student must take into consideration with, so why is it that the parents are complaining and the students are not. - really this is just a question, not sarcastic in any way</p>
<p>Using Harvard as an example: Those students whose parents make less than 60K go for free, so they are not saddled with loans. Any student whose parents make more than 60K but can't or won't pay, must take out loans if they want to go. </p>
[/quote]
I believe that there are maybe about 5 Ivy league/ Ivy caliber schools that do not require students to take out loans. At every other college in the country, financial aid is built from self-help, with loans + work study before any grants are awarded. I don't know of any college where acceptance is at a level that is fairly predictable that would excuse a student from loans. In other words -- you aren't going to find a "match" or a "safety" that won't require loans with a need-based award.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the ideal scenario would be to eliminate all forms of aid based on need, use those funds saved to lower tuition for everyone, and then offer low-interest, long-term loans (think 3% over 60 years type terms) to everyone regardless of need.
[/quote]
I'm all for this if you add in an equal pay provision: I just don't think its "fair" that I get less money per hour of work than, say, Bill Gates. I'm older than Bill & I have more education -- shouldn't I get more?</p>
<p>haha calmom, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates doesn't get paid by the hour.</p>
<p>Your point in #388 is well taken. There are so many permutations of financial aid across the spectrum of colleges that it is almost impossible to debate the issue in a coherent fashion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So again, why is the middle-class student saddled with loans, but not the lower-income student?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At the college I work at, not one of the 3/4 who don't require loans of low income students, in other words, one of the thousands that do, students are almost all low income, and graduate with many thousands of dollars of loans. </p>
<p>Like all but about twenty colleges, this one does not promise to meet full need. So, besides the loans, they also work, many overly long hours.</p>
<p>Like I've said before, you think the poor have easier lives? Go ahead and be one; it's not a tough club to join. Just get rid of your car, your house, your savings, your retirement plan, and most of your income. Enjoy!</p>
<p>No, I did not say the poor have easier lives. But the title of this thread is about the middle-class and what they can expect from financial aid. </p>
<p>Based on much of the information I have gleaned, the middle-class is in the same boat with low-income students when it comes to loans, and in SOME instances, has it worse as they may not be eligible for any grants at all.</p>
<p>[southpas - i just cited an example in #387 where it IS true]</p>
<p>My beef however, is not so much with the intricacies of financial aid awards, but with the fact that tuition is out-of-control for everyone. (Yikes, I'm getting caught up in this hornet's nest argument without meaning to!)</p>
<p>I guess I just don't agree that tuition is out of control for everyone. I live in a true middle class, mostly blue collar town, and the kids who want to go to college, go. The vast majority go to one of the local state schools or a CC. The more motivated go to Rutgers or TCNJ. A thin sliver of top students go to more selective privates.</p>
<p>Bottom line is, they are all attending college. So I don't see it as a problem to be fixed, especially by eliminating need-based aid which is helping many of them to be there.</p>
<p>a few cases out of thousands is nothing in the retrospect of things (especially when considering the sizes of the schools you are noting compared to the rest of then outstanding college students</p>
<p>That is a good question and partly why I do not want to pursue this argument.</p>
<p>My feeling when I read OP's rant was that if a student can get accepted to a college, well there SHOULD BE some way for him/her to go! I think its a shame when any kid is shut out due to cost.</p>
<p>Now many on these boards don't agree with me and that is fine. Many people feel that as long as a kid has one alternative (state U or community college) then that is good enough. I am just not in that camp.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Middle class...applicants are the ones who suffer. So go ahead and rant!!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bay: on Page 1 of this thread, you posted the above rather broad claim, and IMO, such a comment requires a definition. There are 11 pages on this topic but we all could be talking about different parts of the elephant. Do you mean Scarsdale/Beverly Hills "middle" class or Fairbanks (AK) middle class?</p>
<p>If you are living in an area where people often have summer homes & household help, you are going to feel low income if * you* are the one going into their homes and doing their laundry- even if you earn more than the US median of [$46,326.[/url</a>]</p>
<p>IMO- middle income doesn't change depending on where you live. It is the same throughout the country even though buying power changes.
If you live in NY- 16% are considered to be middle class
Everyone left & right seems to agree ( or should I say most everyone), that the middle class has shrunk.</p>
<p>Its hard to argue with a view that middle class is able to own a home & to be able to afford the upkeep, to pay toward retirement, to have a job with medical insurance- and to be able to maybe buy an american made new car every ten years or to go out to dinner on your wedding anniversary.</p>
<p>However- since fewer of us are able to do that every year ( thanks mr Bush), is it any wonder that those of us who can't are worried about losing even more ground?</p>
<p>Recieving need based aid for college- is one of the few places where families who should be middle class, can expect to get some equity for their kids.</p>
<p>Families who haven't been able to afford to live in suburbs with good schools, who can't afford tutoring or special programs for their kids, and who may not even have health ins, should at least be able to count on benefits like subsidized loans and even forgiven loans for college.</p>
<p>Im not sure why some college tuition has risen so much- I do know they had been predicting it for years. Public higher ed, needs a larger piece of state funding,( as does k-12)
Private schools are also increasing costs obviously as students and parents demand nicer facilities and more prestigious professors.
Endowments are growing- but is that for research for post docs?</p>
<p>However, a couple years ago, their former president gave $10.5 million to a company owned by his girlfriend- which must have hurt- particularly when it went bankrupt.
They now are going to require the PROFILE- and I expect this will change their previously generous financial aid program.
Colleges are just like any other business in which they pass the costs to the consumer.
Forewarned is forearmed</p>