<p>I'm a current freshman at MIT. My parents make around 50k. They are paying around 25k for me to be here. Why? Because I'm a white male, my biological parents are married, and they own a relatively valuable house they bought cheap in the '70's. My dad is 71, and he never went to college. I should have gone to Harvard, but I had no way of knowing this 60k or less thing would happen.</p>
<p>Meh, it's only money.</p>
<p><em>tilts head</em> You know, that response has always puzzled me. I think I know mollie well enough to know that she didn't mean it in any terrible way, but the sentiment on its own is still pretty callous.</p>
<p>When I got a full scholarship at Caltech, the difference this made for the "real price" of college was huge for my family -- around 30k a year, probably more. A Princeton professor who was lobbying for [guess who] told me "don't worry about this money, it won't matter in the long run." And lots of other people told me the same thing.</p>
<p>But it's completely wrong advice. The money is a big deal. "Only money" represents the difference between financial security and constant worry. It also means the difference between buying other things worth ~$120k+, or not buying those other things. (Those things can be future consumption -- i.e. savings -- or bling.)</p>
<p>I don't know where this culture of "it's only money" comes from (since it's so widespread). One guess is that people say it to convey the point that even if you can get a full ride at your state school -- which most Caltech/MIT/Harvard admits easily can -- you shouldn't let money make the decision for you; after all, it's "only money". That's the right advice, but the wrong reason. It's not that money is unimportant, but that the considerable difference between a state school and MIT is so important that it is worth the difference.</p>
<p>To use that same kind of phrase to make the same kind of point to a hypothetical someone choosing between MIT and Harvard is pure nonsense. Suppose someone was choosing between two homes to buy, and they were quite similar (in value to the person), but one was free and the other was hundreds of thousands of dollars. Would you also say, "meh, it's only money, just pick the one you like better"? Would you give yourself such advice?</p>
<p>I also think people just don't seem to understand how big a deal it is to be fairly independent financially instead of having to rely on your parents for money. Psychologically, you stop being a child much earlier, and that's been valuable for me.</p>
<p>This doesn't mean that people should always take free rides. Sometimes you might prefer MIT to Harvard sufficiently that it's worth the money. But it does mean that saying "it's only money", is really silly, to use a polite term.</p>
<p>Final point: mollie dear, would you tell 123's parents, who are living on lower-class wages and/or taking on big debt, that it's "only money"?</p>
<p>you're right. MIT IS cheap. I have a household income of 80k and a near full ride.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I should have gone to Harvard, but I had no way of knowing this 60k or less thing would happen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It wasn't pointed out to you in your Harvard financial aid package?</p>
<p>For most people I know here, including meee, MIT offered the most non-merit-based aid (most if not all grants) of any school at which they were accepted. Better than any other institution and very comparable to Harvard's. </p>
<p>I don't think I've met anyone whose sole reason for choosing Harvard over peer schools is money.</p>
<p>Besides, it's just money.</p>
<p>pebbles, 123 is a current freshman, and the free <$60k offer at Harvard was announced this year.</p>
<p>I decided to enroll in Harvard for financial aid, in the sense that from a comparable school in my list (including MIT), I would not have gotten an equivalent offer. They gave me a ridiculous offer that definitely would not have been matched by any other school, which was important for me because I have siblings around my age.</p>
<p>I'm sure MIT is reasonable with financial aid offers, but the money DOES MATTER for some families and Harvard has more funding to pay for students.</p>
<p>That said, I still have a soft spot in my heart for MIT. :)</p>
<p>I just hope they ARE cheap ;) (I still haven't received my package).</p>
<p>BTW, pebbles how did your family get such a good package? I'm wondering how they can come up with such vastly different aid packages, with parents' incomes in the same ranges ($60-70K). I wonder how heavily they weight your assets.</p>
<p>Same reason I think the <60k plan is bogus. Income is like SATs. It's just one measure of your family's ability to pay. We're immigrants with no savings, no assets, just starting to pay off a mortgage, etc etc. If we put more than 20k a year into college we wouldn't be able to support all of our relatives living in another country like we do now.</p>
<p>Er, you do realize that the <$60k plan includes adding more financial aid for students in the $60k-$80k range too? And that Harvard DOES look a lot more than just income (my personal example included)? Not that the system's perfect, but Harvard is probably the most financially generous school in the country and is very thorough in assessing need. I can't see any way that offering full financial aid to <$60k students could possibly be a bad thing.</p>
<p>No, I definitely didn't mean it in any sort of callous way -- I understand that there are many families who are simply not capable of meeting their EFC, and that for those families, the financial aid package offered by a school is a very real make-or-break for the child's ability to attend.</p>
<p>I suppose what I have an issue with is a family that expects not to have to make sacrifices for education. Money, above and beyond what one needs to live, is just money. And given the choice between a more expensive education at a school that made me happy and a cheap education at a school I wasn't psyched about, I'd choose the school that made me happy any day of the year. (I did make that decision four years ago, between MIT and OSU, and I'm lucky that my parents were willing to make the financial sacrifices necessary to make that happen. My mother still does occasionally lament the loss of her hypothetical in-ground pool.)</p>
<p>Ben, I do agree with your points -- money is important. And when choosing between $$$ at Caltech and $ at Princeton, I don't think you'd be wrong in choosing the $$$. I still don't think that should be the only consideration, particularly since in the absence of merit money at MIT and Harvard, the choice is most frequently between $ and $$ or something.</p>
<p>I think it's reasonable to make money a deciding factor when the differences between financial packages and/or the differences in school qualities is very large. I don't think it's reasonable to make it a deciding factor when those differences are small.</p>
<p>Then we agree completely. Are you going to be at MIT or Harvard next year? : )</p>
<p>Harvard. </p>
<p>Their stipend was $550 more per year.</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>EDIT, because I know somebody is going to take me too seriously: And I didn't choose based on the stipend!</p>
<p><em>laughs</em> good going! :)</p>
<p>2qrweatfasefsda</p>
<p>sdafdsafvb</p>
<p>That last post was a mistake. I don't think I can delete it now.</p>
<p>Yeah, so I should admit that it's not really as bad as I made it out to be. All the facts I said are true, but my parents also have savings. It's just really annoying that a lot of people I know here seem to have better packages than me for superficial (race, parents' marital status, etc.) reasons. Affirmitive Action is just one of many perversions of liberal policy that we have to live with. </p>
<p>And yes, of course money matters. Had I known Harvard would make this deal, I would have gone there.</p>
<p>Hmm... I'm mostly on your side in this one, but I have never heard anything to substantiate the claim that race impacts financial aid awards. I am fairly sure that it would violate several federal laws if any college were to take race into account in computing need-based aid.</p>
<p>I doubt race affects your finaid at MIT, at least. I'd assume it's completely based on need.</p>
<p>"Affirmitive Action is just one of many perversions of liberal policy that we have to live with. "</p>
<p>I don't even see how this would work. But if it makes you feel less bitter..</p>
<p>Just to be clear, race has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on your need-based financial aid, at MIT or elsewhere. At MIT, we do not look at race in any way when we consider your financial aid application, nor do any colleges I know.</p>
<p>Our process is based on need - plain and simple. (well, sort of... need is anything but plain and simple, see my new [and old] blog for a discussion of need).</p>
<p>Also, I would suggest that Harvard and we have different ways of analyzing need; in any case, there are bound to be minute differences, in some cases there may be major differences. Harvard has its $60K program, but has self-help levels for all students, we are adopting a Pell Matching Program which reduces self help levels for Pell recipients.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I got a full scholarship at Caltech, the difference this made for the "real price" of college was huge for my family -- around 30k a year, probably more. A Princeton professor who was lobbying for [guess who] told me "don't worry about this money, it won't matter in the long run." And lots of other people told me the same thing.</p>
<p>But it's completely wrong advice. The money is a big deal. "Only money" represents the difference between financial security and constant worry. It also means the difference between buying other things worth ~$120k+, or not buying those other things. (Those things can be future consumption -- i.e. savings -- or bling.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I sympathasize with this position, I feel rather sanguine on this and I get the feeling that often times money really isn't that important, for the following reason.</p>
<p>The fact is, I've seen the kind of money that you can make in such fields as investment banking, private equity, hedge funds, asset management and so forth, and I would say that anybody who is qualified enough to get into Caltech or Princeton or schools of that caliber, and who honestly puts their mind into getting a job in those fields, will probably get such a job. And the fact is, a 120k sum of money really isn't that much money for people in those fields. In other words, if these people really really want to make an obscene amount of money quickly, they can do it.</p>
<p>The question is not whether they can do it, but whether they really want to. It is true that these finance jobs are extremely hard work. And a lot of people don't like them. All good reasons for not taking these jobs. But certainly the opportunity is there. For people who are good enough to get into schools mentioned above, they certainly have the ability to get these jobs. That's not an issue in the least. The question is the will. But certainly, if you have the will, you can wipe out a 120k debt in very little time. </p>
<p>I would say that this even holds true for the PhD's. Ben, looks like you're going to be pursuing your Math PhD. Well, surely I don't have to tell you that a number of Math PhD's have run off to start their own hedge funds and become gazillionaires in the process. Molliebatmit, looks like you're going to get your Bio PhD. Again, I would say that plenty of Bio PhD's run off to start their own biotech companies, becoming gazillionaires in the process. It comes down to a matter of whether you want to work on things that are highly commercializable. But certainly I would say that if either one of you really dedicated yourselves to becoming filthy rich, I have no doubt that you could do it. In that context, I would say that some full ride at some school really is not that big of a deal.</p>
<p>What if you just want to be a university professor, and also want not to have to worry about debt all through graduate school and your early career? Then it seems a full ride is very valuable.</p>
<p>In other words, your argument has a huge hole. Yes, I could go make a very big paycheck and cover $120k worth of debt in two years. At the cost of sacrificing the intellectual ambition that took me to college in the first place. In fact, that's the very problem with taking on lots of debt; it becomes important to make more money to cover your past obligations, even if the job you take is nowhere near your dream job. So lots of people take lucrative jobs that they don't really have a passion for.</p>
<p>A full ride allows you to dream freely and take a smaller paycheck if it means pursuing what you love, without being saddled with tons of debt. That's what money translates into. Freedom.</p>
<p>Maybe it's difficult for you to contemplate that a lucrative i-banking or engineering career isn't the only thing a college education is good for.</p>