<p>
[quote]
So why should I expect a student who has been accepted to a need aid only school, but whose family isn't going to pay the costs, be subsidized to attend?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With all due respect, I'm almost certain that many well-off families feel that same way about subsidizing the college costs of the children of parents who did not work as hard as they did.</p>
<p>momfromme - Agreed. My choice of words could be better. (Product of the country's worst k-12 public school system [at the time] speaking...)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Median housing prices by metropolitan region can be found here: <a href="http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/Pages/MetroPrice%5B/url%5D%5B/quote%5D">http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/Pages/MetroPrice
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>Thanks for the info. I think it answers the question: If the median household income in my area is $75k, and the median house price is $500k, it follows that the median family cannot afford the median house.</p>
<p>Which supports my earlier statement, that "middle class" sometimes depends on your location and family circumstances.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So why should I expect a student who has been accepted to a need aid only school, but whose family isn't going to pay the costs, be subsidized to attend?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
With all due respect, I'm almost certain that many well-off families feel that same way about subsidizing the college costs of the children of parents who did not work as hard as they did
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I object to looking at things in terms of "subsidies." Places like Harvard seem to want us to believe that financial aid is a zero sum game; that by granting financial aid they are bestowing some scarce and precious resource on their students. To me, that's BS. </p>
<p>What they are doing is giving discounts. If you pay sticker price for a car, are you subsidizing purchasers who negotiate the price down? Not really. What you are mainly doing is letting the car dealer make a fatter profit.</p>
<p>JMHO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it follows that the median family cannot afford the median house.</p>
<p>Which supports my earlier statement, that "middle class" sometimes depends on your location and family circumstances.
[/quote]
Home ownership is nice, but it isn't the defining factor of "middle class". Many middle class families are renters. Many older middle class families own homes because they bought them years ago -- my house was purchased in 1988, and I can indeed afford to live in the ~$200K home that I bought, even though it is now a $600K home on paper. The homes in my tract were built in the late 50's, and probably initially sold for around $20K. There are older, retired people on my block who have lived in those homes since they were initially purchased, and there are homes that have been passed from one family member to a successive generation. Many young people have acquired their homes through inheritance -- often the home is the only major asset. </p>
<p>There was a time when home ownership was part of the American Dream and every middle class family aspired to own one. But I don't think that is true anymore -- as home prices rise, home ownerships increasingly becomes a sign of affluence. </p>
<p>It's not all that bad, though-- because so much else that was once a sign of great affluence has become easily accessible, such as consumer goods and electronics, and travel. When I was growing up, it was a big deal if a family had a color t.v. -- and only rich people did the kind of traveling that has become almost routine for my kids generation. I mean, last summer my d. had a sudden opportunity to go with a group to China - we all needed to pitch in about $1500 and the money was easily put together by a bunch of middle-income families (all of us living in very small houses). $1500 is a lot of money, but it represents only a couple of weeks income for a median-income family. What I have seen is that over the years, the cost of travel or of consumer goods has remained fairly stable, so with inflation the relative cost has become far less. That is, I think that color t.v. my parents couldn't afford in 1962 would have cost about $350, and I can still buy a nice color t.v. for about $350 ... but $350 is a lot less money in 2007 dollars. </p>
<p>So there are a lot of people living in rented homes and apartments who are living quite comfortably and wanting for nothing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What they are doing is giving discounts.
[/quote]
I agree -- what they are doing is setting their fees on a sliding scale and also setting the terms by which that scale is determined. Which is why I see the system as ultimately fair -- I have no problem at all with the idea that if I earn $10K more next year, I will see my college bill go up by $5K -- I understand that the higher my position is on that sliding scale, the more I will pay, and that the scale is a discount schedule not an entitlement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Home ownership is nice, but it isn't the defining factor of "middle class".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Feel free to define it any way you like. It's just a matter of semantics.</p>
<p>Anyway, to my mind, the cost of a home is a decent measure of how expensive a suburban or rural area is to live in.</p>
<p>I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier request:</p>
<p>Kindly point to a post where somebody who needed merely to "borrow or dip into home equity or retirement assets" to pay for college was distraught about this fact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree -- what they are doing is setting their fees on a sliding scale and also setting the terms by which that scale is determined. Which is why I see the system as ultimately fair --
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't understand -- are you saying that any pricing system that involves a sliding scale is ultimately fair?</p>
<p>NJ_Mother sent a pm to me with a question, "What if home equity is part of your retirement portfolio?"</p>
<p>Here is my stock answer: You can always work few extra years to replenish that amount (I am following my own advice).</p>
<ol>
<li>Your home will hopefully grow in value.</li>
<li>You will work extra years, and while you are working you don't need to draw on your equity.</li>
<li>Let us say you want a pot of X to last you Y years (you pick a number when you want to die). If you work say 3 extra years you need enough money to last you only Y-3 years.</li>
<li><p>Your social security will also increase. No matter what people say, SS is a giant pyramid scheme. No one in Washington has any guts to touch it.
5.down size your standard of living. There is not a middle class family who can not cut down their expenses by at least 10-15%. And the way you NJ people write - (middle class with income of 175k), you can easily trim 20-30K/yr. If you can't do it - send me your budget and I will be happy to downsize it for you.</p></li>
<li><p>If you are afraid that you don't have enough money, don't give money to your kids as freebies - loan it them (I am doing that too). This way both you and your kids have the flexibility. If your financial picture is better than your projections, you can forgive the loan (You are going to give them anyway after you die. I have rarely heard of a case when somebody died peniless). If not you have some steady stream of income.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
Feel free to define it any way you like. It's just a matter of semantics.
[/quote]
Not it isn't. "Middle" means "middle" - like your income is "in the middle". When colleges talk about "middle" SAT scores, they mean middle 50%. I'll bet if your kid has SAT scores of 2300 and the 75th percentile mark for his target school was 2100 you wouldn't be making a big point about how your kid had "middle" level scores.</p>
<p>The top 10% of earners are not "middle" class, they are "upper" -- they make more money than all the poor people and all the middle class earners. Look at the charts here:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States</a></p>
<p>If the people at the very top have a hard time making ends meet, then we must live in a very poor country indeed.... but that's not what I see. What I see is very affluent people who are confused over the difference between purchasing luxury items vs. necessary items. They are defining "middle class" as "the ability to maintain a privileged life style." </p>
<p>I'm sorry that my own kids will probably not be able to afford to become homeowners, but I have seen my son living in rented rooms that were larger and in much nicer neighborhoods than the room I provided for him in the house I own -- I don't think he was suffering. Even though home purchase prices skyrocket, rental prices are largely market driven -- so apartment owners are not going to be able to fill their units unless they offer rents that are affordable to the workers who are likely to occupy those units.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Kindly point to a post where somebody who needed merely to "borrow or dip into home equity or retirement assets" to pay for college was distraught about this fact.
[/quote]
It's all over this board coming up in one thread after another. You can find the posts yourself. Your own response to my suggestion of taking a PLUS loan is that you could never manage the payments - that you would default after a couple of years and lose your home. That makes no sense to me - if you are a 6 figure earner, how come you can't manage payments on a loan? I figure that I would be able to manage payments of $500/month on my $50K income - which is about $40K of borrowing power. </p>
<p>I kind of know the answer because somewhere along the line you posted that you set up your own practice a few years back and most of your income is going to pay business debt. (If I am mistaken, I'm sorry -- I don't have time to dig up the post I'm thinking of and maybe I misunderstood or it is someone else's post). But assuming that is your situation, then that is a choice to prioritize the desire for self-employment over saving for college. I used to be a self-employed attorney and I figured I would never be able to support my kids through college unless I had a steady income, so I switched careers to something with low overhead. I'm still self-employed, but I got rid of all my business debt by refinancing my house, and that means I don't have some outside drag on finances standing in the way of my ability to support my daughter through college. </p>
<p>The point is: most 6 figure earners can well afford to borrow. If they can't, then they probably have made lifestyle choices that are responsible for the "high cost" they complain about. As far as I know, most of the median earners in those expensive NJ counties have roofs over their head and well-fed children -- they must have figured out how to manage on their incomes, whether or not they can afford to send their kids to private colleges.</p>
<p>I happen to be living in the community with some of the cheapest available housing in my general geographic area. I used to live in San Francisco, but when my ex husband and I wanted to buy a home we looked for several years and just couldn't afford a home there, so we moved out to the suburbs & commuted. That's a simple lifestyle choice that made it easier to make ends meet with our incomes, one which many thousands of commuters in the SF bay area made long before we were faced with that choice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's all over this board coming up in one thread after another. You can find the posts yourself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why should I? You made the claim, it's up to you to either back it up or withdraw it and apologize. In essence, you accused me of being unappreciative of my situation and I'm skeptical that you have any basis to make such an accusation.</p>
<p>So I ask you again: Please quote a post of mine that shows I am "unappreciative."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your own response to my suggestion of taking a PLUS loan is that you could never manage the payments - that you would default after a couple of years and lose your home.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So what? How does that mean I'm "unappreciative"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But assuming that is your situation, then that is a choice to prioritize the desire for self-employment over saving for college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely. If I'd stayed at my old job instead of quitting, I'd be making about $350k right now. But again . . . so what?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The point is: most 6 figure earners can well afford to borrow
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some can and some can't. 8 years of Harvard could easily cost $400,000.00. A lot of people earning $100k could not borrow this kind of money. But again . . . so what?</p>
<p>How does any of this make me "unappreciative?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not it isn't. "Middle" means "middle" - like your income is "in the middle".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ummm, middle of which group? People who live in a particular town? People who live in a particular county? A particular state? A particular nation? In the world? Young people? Old people? </p>
<p>And by the way, the median age for men in the United States is apparently about 35. Are you seriously claiming that a 35 year old American man is "middle aged"? Are you seriously claiming that anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong? That it's not just a matter of semantics?</p>
<p>The median age for Mexicans is apparently about 25. Does that mean a 25 year old Mexican is "middle aged"? And that anyone who says otherwise is wrong?</p>
<p>
[quote]
A lot of people earning $100k could not borrow this kind of money.
[/quote]
People earning $100K would probably qualify for enough financial aid to reduce the Harvard cost to around $30K a year - they would be looking at $120K over 4 years.
[quote]
If I'd stayed at my old job instead of quitting, I'd be making about $350k right now. But again . . . so what?
[/quote]
You had it all, decided to give it away, and now think it is unfair that Harvard doesn't want to subsidize that choice.</p>
<p>*And by the way, the median age for men in the United States is apparently about 35. Are you seriously claiming that a 35 year old American man is "middle aged"? Are you seriously claiming that anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong? That it's not just a matter of semantics?</p>
<p>The median age for Mexicans is apparently about 25. Does that mean a 25 year old Mexican is "middle aged"? And that anyone who says otherwise is wrong?*</p>
<p>The average life expectancy for men in European countries is about age 75- so yes age 37.5 would be technically middle aged.</p>
<p>I know that no one ever wants to think of themselves " as middle aged"- but when do you think it should be measured? when you retire?
If people retire at 65 and die 10 years later- 65 isn't middle aged, its "elderly".</p>
<p>Life expectancy for a Mexican is slightly lower than in US- but similar.
As opposed to Russia</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know that no one ever wants to think of themselves " as middle aged"- but when do you think it should be measured? when you retire
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In common parlance, most people would not consider a 25 year old as middle aged. If they heard somebody referred to as a "middle-aged Mexican man," most people would probably NOT envision a 25 year old.</p>
<p>If you think that a 25 year old Mexican is "middle aged," feel free. But you are using a non-standard definition.</p>
<p>In any event, please keep in mind that words are our servants, not our masters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People earning $100K would probably qualify for enough financial aid to reduce the Harvard cost to around $30K a year - they would be looking at $120K over 4 years.</p>
<p>[snip]</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps . . . but how does this show that I'm "unappreciative"?</p>
<p>Again, I am asking you please show me which of my posts show that I'm "unappreciative?"</p>
<p>Oh, and calmom, please answer my other question:</p>
<p>When you say that "middle means middle," which group are you referring to the "middle" of?</p>
<p>And would you refer to a 25 year old Mexican as "middle aged"?</p>
<p>From: Ivy Financial Aid Committee</p>
<p>To: Suzy Senior</p>
<p>Re: Your Financial Aid Award</p>
<p>It has come to our attention that your parents were both accepted to medical school but instead chose to become teachers. Accordingly, by our calculations, your family could have earnings of at least $350,000.00 per year right now but chose not to. Thus we are denying you financial aid. Do you seriously expect us to subsidize your parents' choices? Bwahahahahaha.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree -- what they are doing is setting their fees on a sliding scale and also setting the terms by which that scale is determined. Which is why I see the system as ultimately fair --
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't understand -- are you saying that any pricing system that involves a sliding scale is ultimately fair?</p>
<p>A system that is objective is fair. I don't define "fair" as "I get my way" or "someone else makes my life easy." </p>
<p>I define "fair" as "the same rules apply to everyone."</p>