<p>Well say, a school costs 50k a year, 200k for four years.
Some parents somehow manage to save 100k for their kids college, hypothetically.
Why should they not be eligible for the grant money they otherwise would have gotten if they hadn’t saved up all that money? That way, together with the money they saved and the grant money they were given, they’d be able to cover the full tuition. However, in this case, they will likely get nothing from the college if they saved that much. Versus a family with the same income, that didn’t save, will get their kid’s tuition paid in grants instead of savings. How is that fair?</p>
<p>Basically what I’m saying is, what would the incentive be to save for your kids’ college when the college/government would otherwise pay for it if you didn’t save?</p>
<p>I think saving for a kids college should be an incentive to the parents too- that with their savings AND the grants they would have been awarded, together, can cover the full cost of the college. Not having one or the other- otherwise there is really no incentive for the parents to save.</p>
<p>That’s a problem of gapping, not a problem of financial need. I agree that gapping is bad. Should a student be “punished” by not being able to attend a school (I’m not talking $50k schools here, though) because her parents didn’t save? That’s why the non-saver gets money and the saver doesn’t. But in the end, it should cover the same. If a school costs $80,000 over four years, the family that has saved $80,000 should pay $80,000 and the family that saved nothing will get some grants a lot of loans. That’s the way things are. No one at the income level that can save, say, $200,000 is going to get a full ride anywhere just because they haven’t saved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I’m saying. I absolutely loathe this mindset. If that’s the middle and upper class mindset, then I’m happy that I was never part of it. I would be MORE THAN HAPPY to have saved $275,000 for a Stanford education. Obviously, that didn’t happen. I wouldn’t have wanted to live at a lower income just because “someone else” would pay for my college education. Why pay for something myself if the government/college will just buy it for me? Why not quit working and go on food stamps? The incentive to save is that you a) can and b) are responsible to.</p>
<p>I think the deal is that no one is owed anything. The gov’t provides minimal aid to the neediest students --sometimes it’s enough for a kid to live at home and attend community college, but that’s about it.</p>
<p>Colleges and foundations that grant money do it because they have a mission that guides those decisions. If their mission is to get a more diverse student body, more athletes, more Capricorns or more of whatever else they want, then they are using financial support to get that thing. It’s not a debt owed by those colleges or foundations to the children of spenders or the children of savers, it’s a choice they make as to how to meet their own aims.</p>
<p>Any parent who believes there is no incentive to save for college, should spend a day in the shoes of the many parents who have to tell their kids community college is their only option, even with other wonderful acceptances in hand.</p>
<p>Blackroses, a $100K savings would not produce a $50K EFC. First, FAFSA has an asset protection allowance which is age based (ie. a 45 yo parent has a $46K savings exlusion, a 60 yo has a $69K savings allowance). EFC is influenced mostly by income, so someone with a $50K EFC (and $100K in savings) is likely earning well over $100K per year. Not much need, hence not much need based aid.</p>
<p>The problem with the myth of “no incentive” to save is that most colleges don’t meet need anyway, and families are responsible for at least their EFC. Those who don’t bother to save often are left scrambling to pay the bills and end up borrowing huge amounts. Most people don’t have children and wonder who is going to feed, clothe, raise, and educate them…they correctly assume that it’s their own responsibilitu. Imo, it’s always better to try to be prepared and meet your own needs than to throw your kid’s future to the wind (or on the mercy of the government and schools). There are 529’s and other savings vehicles that offer tax incentives in the meantime.</p>
<p>"a $100K savings would not produce a $50K EFC. First, FAFSA has an asset protection allowance which is age based (ie. a 45 yo parent has a $46K savings exlusion, a 60 yo has a $69K savings allowance). EFC is influenced mostly by income, so someone with a $50K EFC (and $100K in savings) is likely earning well over $100K per year. Not much need, hence not much need based aid.</p>
<p>The problem with the myth of “no incentive” to save is that most colleges don’t meet need anyway, and families are responsible for at least their EFC. Those who don’t bother to save often are left scrambling to pay the bills and end up borrowing huge amounts. Most people don’t have children and wonder who is going to feed, clothe, raise, and educate them…they correctly assume that it’s their own responsibilitu. Imo, it’s always better to try to be prepared and meet your own needs than to throw your kid’s future to the wind (or on the mercy of the government and schools). There are 529’s and other savings vehicles that offer tax incentives in the meantime."</p>
<p>This was the answer I was looking for. This makes sense. </p>
<p>Applicantnot, just a note- I’m not a parent, and I don’t have that mind set. I am a student like you. I was just trying to understand why on earth middle class parents would want to save, for say, a school that offers 100% demonstrated financial need (in grants or mostly grants… I believe pomona has a program like this), that in other words they would be getting free money if they hadn’t saved. Seeing as those who don’t save end up getting aid in both grants, but mostly loans, there’s the incentive there.</p>
<p>^
This is because parents don’t immediately know if their child may or may not have the qualifications to be accepted into those 100% demonstrated financial need colleges. As seems to be the general consensus on the board (after looking at a few threads), most parents seem to agree to start saving after the child is born or a few years into his or her life, depending on how much exactly you want to contribute. It’s near impossible (unless your child is another Yo Yo Ma - in that case, more power to you!) for parents to determine the academic future of their children. </p>
<p>*And, as we all know, there are many bright, low-income students of parents who happen not to have the credentials in order to get into the 100% demonstrated financial need colleges and need some kind of money/savings/extra scholarships to help pay gaps for State Universities, etc. </p>
<p>So, it’s better to save for the opportunities your child may or may not have than to deny them because you do not have sufficient funds for them.</p>
<p>One reason you can’t full rely on 100% need schools is that “100% need” varies. Our 100% need schools this year and in the past, were not the same, sometimes over 5,000-10,000 difference. Some 100% need was met with loans, (stafford, perkins, 7500.00 total), and workstudy,some no loans at all, all just grants and scholarships.
Also, our family had their income jump quite a bit later in life, a year or so before my son went to college. Savings weren’t able to be made based on that income, which is what they base I think, most of your ability to pay. Usually though, you can do it, you might need loans, a strict budget, but the calculators don’t know the entire picture.
It was an education on “full need”, understanding colleges will meet students need differently and I think if they really want you, will hopefully adjust it…others just say No and move on.
I also found some colleges, especially just fafsa colleges, gave us more, counting my son in grad school (who will live at home in the beginning and under 22) Others , most of them wont count a grad school student, despite the conditions.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>EFC is largely income based. No matter what you have in savings, your EFC is going to expect that some of the money you made was put into savings. End of story. No one making $200,000 a year is going to get a full ride just because they didn’t save any money. They are going to be **** out of luck.</p></li>
<li><p>Of even the least selective schools that promise to meet 100% of demonstrated need, the acceptance rate is <25%. The schools that promise to meet 100% of demonstrated need with no loans have acceptance rates <15%. The odds aren’t good.</p></li>
<li><p>No one knows if a baby is going to be an academic genius or a high school slacker. You can’t bank on competitiveness for schools with those academic programs, much less admission.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I completely agree with 'rentof2 and sk8rmom. My comments were a little harsh, but they are true. I’m not sure who that mindset is characteristic of, but I’m glad I’m not part of that group. It is ALWAYS better to be able to provide for oneself than to rely on others.</p>
<p>Yes, I do have a full time job, always have. Last year, I got a pretty good raise, more than I have ever made. If I can manage to NOT be laid off (again) from my part time job, I should be making about $63k by the time my son is college age. HOWEVER - REMEMBER that I live in NEW JERSEY where cost of living is sky high. And I am still paying off the laywer debt of over $20,000 (for the custody case of my son) that I had no choice but to charge on six different credit cards. I pay a lot to those cards each month, plus my mortgage on my small condo (which is $1675 per month) and a car payment and other assorted average bills, and I only received Child Support from my son’s father for two short years. That is it. The rest, I have done on my own, on a secretary salary. I could not go to college because I could not afford to. I could only afford secretarial school.</p>
<p>I don’t know much about how other countries do this, but it seems OTHER countries seem to guarentee an education to young people. Do they provide money? Is college free in other countries?<br>
Those educated graduates then move to the United States and take over jobs that us Americans are not qualified for BECAUSE not enough young Americans were able to complete their college degrees due to the cost of college BECAUSE they did not qualify for enough (or any) Financial Aide! BECAUSE their parents were saving up for their retirements instead of handing over their retirement savings to their children to pay for college.
Is it selfish for those parents to hang onto their $20,000 or $30,000 or $50,000? Well… I don’t know. I am NOT talking about middle class parents who waste thousands on fabulous vacations or expensive cars. I am talking about average people.<br>
My parents are nearly out of money now, they are retired and living on Social Security and a reverse mortgage. They are 75. What happens when they run out of money? And they gave me and my brother ZERO money for college. they held onto their money and had medical bills and other bills. They both worked. Again, NJ is a very expensive state. Which is why they moved to Florida years ago.</p>
<p>In other countries, students are not always “allowed” to go to college. In other countries, kids are often “tracked” during their school years and forced into a route that will not allow them to even consider college.</p>
<p>We have the best college system in the world. We don’t need to be copying inferior systems.</p>
<p>It may not always seem fair, but just as we tell our kids–It is what it is. The education system is great here because we can always send our kids to a local state school or to a community college for the first two years to save money. I’m feeling the single mom’s pain because I was in the same boat for many years. My D is going to an out-of-state public (Auburn) because the scholarships made the cost less expensive that a local public. I would be heartbroken if I tried to match the other parents sending their kids to pricy private universities, and I never promised my D more than our family could afford without taking on a boatload of debt.</p>
<p>For our family, the key was being really honest about what we could afford, and knowing that our child will find opportunity wherever she goes to school. We never entertained schools that wouldn’t offer huge merit, and didn’t look seriously at most of the top schools for financial reasons. Totally anti-CC advice, but it has kept me sane during our college search.</p>
<p>SingleMomNJ, I understand that you’re upset. It’s very frustrating to realize that we can’t give our children everything that we’d like them to have. Some of the best advice on CC is for us parents to be upfront with our kids as early as possible about the money situation. Your having a pedicure isn’t going to make a big difference in what you can afford to give your son for college. A child complaining about that level of parental spending should be finding himself a part-time job. </p>
<p>You ask if college is free in other countries. College is never ‘free’. If students and families in other countries pay little or nothing, it’s because those countries fund college tuition through a higher tax rate. I personally think this is a good idea (and our family has a high marginal tax rate, so my ox is being gored ).</p>
<p>I don’t like the implication that countries that have a low cost of attendance for college are somehow less “free”. It seems ignorant and insulting; just because colleges are less numerous and less expensive doesn’t mean that students are necessarily being short-shifted or are even part of the tracking system (which I agree can be really harsh!)</p>
<p>It really annoys me, the “new” rules - that a young adult is considered a child until they reach age 24. Government just assumes PARENTS are responsible for paying for college. Now, for someone in my position, sure many of you may think I make a VERY good salary, but currently, $60K in NEW JERSEY is not a lot of money! Does anyone know the cost of living in NEW JERSEY? I did not choose to be born here. Now I’m stuck here because I have a child & joint custody with a NEW JERSEY father.
While my salary may seem great to some and some are thinking “Why can’t she afford to pay for her son’s college?” my LAWYER bills via credit cards was OVER $21,000 and it will be 3 or 4 more years before I finish paying that. The only little savings I have is sitting in a small 401K plan at work. I can’t possibly retire on that $5,000.
I did NOT choose an expensive house (it’s a tiny condo - the condo fee alone is $250 mo)
I did NOT choose an expensive car (it’s an economy car) still making payments.
I did NOT take expensive vacations (I visit friends or my parents & stay for free or share with other people to split the cost)
I do not own an expensive “smart” phone, or a digital camera, or a camcorder, and my computer is 8 years old.<br>
I receive no child support or any other support. I support myself; always have.
I bring lunch to work every single day; always have for 25 years.
I work a part time job again; used to do that all the time before my son was born. </p>
<p>His FATHER owns a 4-bedroom house, owns the latest greatest electronic everything, a brand new luxury huge motorcycle, takes cruises and vacations twice a year, buys my son “things” and pays no child support. I believe his wife’s Daddy paid off all his lawyer bills. Her Daddy also re-furnished their house with new furniture. </p>
<p>So do I choose between finally start trying to save money for my retirement in 12 years? OR - do I pay for my son’s college? (how?)</p>
<p>Singlemom, I don’t have answers. I also live in NJ. My son applied to a NJ public U and applied to live on the campus. We have 2 kids in college next year. We did not get a dime in FA grants. We are very middle class. Just know what to expect. If you get some grant money, good for you, but don’t count on much. Also, even community college is pricey. It costs over 5,000 per year for a full load of classes, and if one does not live in a commuting area, the student might need a car. BTW, Rutgers currently costs about 23,000 for tuition, room and board! We were offered better deals at some private colleges than 23,000 per year. This varies though from family to family, depending upon financial need, student stats, and in your case, the FAFSA schools vs. the Profile schools, and custody issues. All that I know is that we ended up with better packages from a few private colleges, but to land those packages my son did need to apply to a lot of schools and he casted a wide net.</p>
<p>Singlemom, I feel for you. You’re one of the many women who end up worse financially then the ex-husband. </p>
<p>I hope that your divorce decree indicated that your H must pay some of the college costs. Why doesn’t he have to pay child support???</p>
<p>Anyway…
I don’t know how old your child is or how good of a student he is, but if is stats are strong then I suggest looking at schools that will give good merit scholarships.</p>
).</p>