<p>emerald…your post #79 is very telling and it explains in a clear way why some don’t understand DadII’s “problems.”</p>
<p>cptofthehouse…I only have two kids and not five like you (bless you!). But I don’t think “equality” needs to translate necessarily into “spend an equal amount on each child.” The way we view equality with our two kids is “equal opportunity.” For instance, each child got to pick where she wanted to go to college. If one college costs more than another, so be it. Each got to pick. One D is going to a 3.5 year graduate school which we will fund. The other D’s undergraduate degree is a terminal professional degree and she will not be going to grad school. In the end, we’ll be spending more on D1 going to grad school and supporting her for 3.5 more years. It is not like I owe D2 an equal amount of money. She will have to support herself upon graduation from college. What she was offered was equal opportunity. So, if she wanted to attend grad school, we would fund it, just like for her sister. When it came to EC pursuits, each child could pursue anything she wanted and we funded it. If one’s EC was more expensive than another, so be it. Both had equal opportunity to spend their summers doing what they wanted. The costs were pretty similar for each child but it was the opportunity that was equal, not the dollar amount. For other things, we are spending the same exact amount per kid…such as each gets an equal amount of money toward food at college (neither are on the meal plan) and both get an equal amount of allowance and an equal amount of clothing allowance. But if one’s books cost more than the other, so be it. We simply offered to fund their book/supplies for college. </p>
<p>In that vein, with DadII…and truly he doesnt’ have to do what I believe in!..but some of us can see if he spends a different amount per kid on college but not that one was offered to apply where she wants and the other MUST get a free ride. That doesn’t seem fair and could lead to resentments. Given DadII’s income level, he should be able to fund some money toward college or borrow some so that his son not need a full ride, just like his D did not have to go where she got a full ride (if she got one). </p>
<p>I also don’t get DadII’s contention that his poor D had to settle for Stanford due to the aid package. Perhaps she had another first choice, I don’t know. But it is not like she wasn’t interested in Stanford (she applied) or it is not like she had to go three tiers down from her ideal choice in order to get the financial package. I don’t feel sorry for her. </p>
<p>And DadII…my kids are on financial aid…we did not limit where they could apply…I believe I am in your general income bracket…we are willing to take loans to fund the kids’ education…I am not getting the vacations that you are doing or any projects on my house, etc. I don’t own a plasma TV (I am not even sure what that is) and have the same TV as when I got married 31 years ago.</p>
<p>What I am saying is that financial constraints may become wise between child 1 and 2. In your case, you were willing and able to offer both of your children their college choices. Sometimes that is not the case. I was able to do so with my two older kids, but the younger ones do need to take cost into consideration, not because we have had a crisis occur, but the general situation is different and we no longer think it is wise to spend as much for college as we did 10 years ago. We can see some things more clearly now and don’t think it is the wisest financial choice. This is not just a college thing either. With the first ones we spent money on many things that we now feel is unwise. We give our reasons, and that is the way it is in our house. Now if there is a strong case to make exception, certainly we shall consider it.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse…you have more years spread between your kids and so things likely change over time. Like DadII, I have two kids who are two years apart in age. As it turned out, D2 decided to apply to college early and graduate HS in three years and thus entered college just ONE year behind her sister. (she likes to remind us the “savings” this brought us as the girls overlapped in college for more years, thus making our FA package better) Anyway, we all do what feels right in our own families. But I can see why some are questioning DadII about a radical change in “policy” in his house with regard to one child applying to her choice schools and another having to get a full ride, when they are only two years apart and his income has not gone down. Actually, the FA package should be better for his son since he’ll have two in college.</p>
<p>If his son is accepted to a school that gives generous financial aid, it would also increase his D;s financial aid. But Stanford is one of the rare schools that gives nearly all grant aid. I don’t know where the son is applying.</p>
<p>Things have changed in the last two years as far as the economy goes. I don’t know why Dad II has this change of mind, but if he does, so be it. Hopefully he can communicate the reasons to his son. However, there are a number of families who just don’t think that they want to spend more than $X for college, and they can change that figure as they get more kids. It is a family issue.</p>
<p>I have seen families where full court press is made to pay for a top college, but for any schools that are not considered “worth it”, there is not the motivation to pay that kind of money. Most of the times the kids are aware of this, and go along with it. My son’s classmate’s sister was accepted to a number of schools, but is commuting locally, because when the cost/benefit was analyzed, the family felt this was the best choice. The next child will be going away to school as they feel that opportunity is worth it. </p>
<p>The problems occur when the kids and the parents are not in agreement with such things.</p>
<p>A couple of thoughts about DadII’s original question:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Even a “Full Ride” scholarship will cost either DadII or his DS some $$ because the University will expect some contribution from the DS’s summer earnings - usually around $3,000 (whether he earned that much or not) and the IRS will tax the non-tuition portion of the scholarship to either DadII or DS (I’m not a tax expert).</p></li>
<li><p>There are a number of substantial merit scholarships out there (just not Full Ride) at Tier One Schools, but DS will need to be in the top percentage of the admitted students (1-5%) to be considered for the most money. In my limited experience, these schools are looking to improve their statistics and know that these students are also looking at HYPMS. Therefore, they use the scholarship interviews as a way to also give the prospective students a “dog and pony show” about the merits of their school and use the scholarship money to lure the students away from HYPMS in the event that HYPMS offers little or no Need Scholarship. My son has a friend who was accepted at Princeton and Columbia, but neither offered any scholarship, so he decided to attend USC on (I believe) a Full Tuition Scholarship. My son received scholarships from USC, UMich, and Rice. (This may enrage some CC posters, but I considered these schools to be academic safeties for my son. That should give DadII an idea of where his DS needs to be for Merit Scholarships.) Each was around $20K, but the nature of the scholarships differed. USC was one-half tuition (about $18K), but was adjusted annually when tuition increased. UMich was about $20K, but was about $12K for tuition and $8K for R&B and you lost the R&B component if you didn’t live in the dorms. Rice was an even $20K, but did not increase annually like USC. However, Rice did not require an interview and simply sent the scholarship offer with the acceptance.</p></li>
<li><p>Some of these schools have deadlines for scholarship consideration which are much earlier than the general application deadline. My son applied early (12/1) because of deadlines required by the program he was interested in, but did not otherwise apply for these scholarships. I know that UMich has a deadline of 12/15, I’m not sure about the others.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^^^that may be
However Rhodes doesn’t meet 100% of need according to their data set
93 (47.2%) of aid recipients- have full need met.
the average amount of need met for students who are found to have need, is 88%.</p>
<p>Sorry, but my patience listening to Dad II whine about finances and who will pay the most for his kids’ education ran out right around decision time on the 52 inch plasma. Not the 30’s, not the 40’s, but keep on going…By the by, alumni/sibling status is a big boost at S. I suspect we’ll be hearing about DII S’s fin. aid package at S down the road. :)</p>
<p>Where’s the reference to the 52" plasma tv? That would be an entertaining read… </p>
<p>And in one of EK’s summary of select DadII quotes it says “we are about to take a road trip to see some schools with DD” (or words to that effect) yet in another thread yesterday he claims only to have visited WashU with his daughter. Hard to parse out fact from fiction around here sometimes…</p>
<p>Jym: It’s in the parent cafe, where Dad II explains that 1 of the FIVE t.v.'s he has in his house is no longer working and he needs to replace it. The quote:
“We will move the spare 27” to the living room and wait until Thanksgiving. We may just get a 52" LCD such as LN52A650."</p>