<p>Man, I must have a very different definition of "middle class", then some of the posters in this thread...</p>
<p>than*. I shouldn't be allowed to post when I'm tired.</p>
<p>Anyways, I go to a top college and my family pays very, very little. We also don't have family health insurance, and my parents haven't been on vacation in ten years. If anyone who grew up in a $200k income household would like to swap places with us for a few months, by all means, be my guest.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, the entire discussion of financial aid assumes that the child is able to be accepted to whatever school they want to attend. If my daughter hadn't been accepted to a 100% need school, then it wouldn't matter how low our EFC is -- she'd be dealing with a financial aid office like NYU's that doesn't give a hoot about what the EFC is and structures awards based largely on merit. Since in general it is only the most selective colleges that have generous, guaranteed aid policies, it definitely does not help the vast majority of college bound students to be poor -- they are going to end up at colleges that offer limited aid in any case. </p>
<p>I understand that your daughter has valid reasons for choosing one school over another, but as the parent of a National Merit finalist attending a CSU where the SAT range is something like 460-600 .... I can't buy the "wants to reach higher" rationale as anything other than an expression of preference, not necessity. Sometime affordability means making a whole lot of compromises. It's not a bad thing necessarily --I've learned in hindsight that there are opportunities open to the smartest and most standout students at a college that are not available to the students in the middle of the pack, no matter what the college -- but the point is, there are choices that people with money can make that cannot be made by people who lack the resources. </p>
<p>It's pretty obvious to me that the only beneficiaries of need based financial aid are students who have both demonstrable financial need and who are highly capable students likely to qualify for admission at top colleges; those students also are likely to qualify for merit aid at many other colleges. So they end up with choices. The students who are not highly accomplished end up with financial aid packages which do not meet full need and which area weighted heavily toward loans.</p>
<p>Calmom, reach higher IS an expression of preference, but it's also a recognition that a kid who could get a nice merit scholarship to a school where she could gradute in four years and be certified to teach should do so rather than go to a school where that would be impossible and 6-7 years much more likely. New York public schools aren't like California public schools. CSI was her only choice locally and we think it was a very bad lifetime decision, as you consider selling your home a bad one. Which goes back to the issue of public spending. Our city and state has priorities other than educating public school teachers. I wasn't arguing my desire for financial aid, as I've said, I'm good without it. I was arguing the definition of middle class being so rigid. Things aren't always what they seem, and I stand by that. As far as my daughter, I used the words "humble and grateful" above and those accurately reflect my feelings. As far as the smartest and brightest standing out. so true. Younger daughter will be in that group and we wil have to consider that. Older daughter is absolutely not in that category. She is a person who has always struggled. CUNY honors and the Teachers Acaemy weren't a possibility for her. She would have been in the pack at CSI and definitely been there 6-7 years. This way, she will graduate with some debt but begin working several years earlier, so she will get the good education/experience AND be at the same place in time as if she had gone to CSI. Definitely the right decision IMO.</p>
<p>I'm not arguing whether the decision is right or wrong -- the point is, it is a decision that you can afford to make. You may consider yourself middle class with a $200K income, but what would happen if you had a $75K income? You may rightfully point out that it is expensive to live in NYC and that your husband's job require that he live there -- but the median household income in NYC is only about $45K. I think you "feel" middle class because you don't have savings to fall back on and you are paying out a large chunk of money for your daughter's tuition. But the point is -- you have the money to make that choice -- even if it is a hardship in that it requires your husband to work 2 jobs and you to work a 65-hour week. Would you be able to to send your daughter to the college she now attends if you were not currently a high end income earner? ("High end" in terms of statistical distribution). That is, does the college your daughter now attends guarantee to meet full need of all its students? What is the average loan burden of its students who do qualify for need-based aid?</p>
<p>I'm not trying to criticize or attack you personally. I am just trying to point out that if a family has enough money to pay full fare for a private college, even if it require a lot of work and some belt-tightening, they are a lot better off than a family that doesn't have the money. You can count all the reasons why it is better for your d. to attend her current college than CSI -- but why do all the students who spend 6 years at CSI choose that? It's not because they are all so ill-informed that they don't know of the better options afforded by colleges like your daughters -- it is because they do not have the money to afford those colleges. </p>
<p>(Note: your comments about California public schools simply reflect lack of information -- the faculty at CSU's get paid less than teachers at community colleges; dozens of faculty at my son's college were laid off last year and my son's favorite teacher, a tenured prof, lost her position because the college eliminated her department; it is very common for students to have to spend extra time at CSU's to get their degrees; my son is a top student at his school but in order to graduate on time he enrolled in 3 online courses from another college over the summer, because he would not have been able to get all the courses he needed in the coming year.)</p>
<p>"not trying to criticize or attack you personally. I am just trying to point out that if a family has enough money to pay full fare for a private college, even if it require a lot of work and some belt-tightening, they are a lot better off than a family that doesn't have the money. You can count all the reasons why it is better for your d. to attend her current college than CSI -- but why do all the students who spend 6 years at CSI choose that? It's not because they are all so ill-informed that they don't know of the better options afforded by colleges like your daughters -- it is because they do not have the money to afford those colleges. "</p>
<p>It actually does come off as an attack, but that's ok. I'll try again. We've only made above the median for the last couple of years. Before that we didn't and are now busting our butts to pay off the debt and fix some of the things that came with a husband making $18k per year and supporting three kids for 16 years. We will very likely step back to one job for him in the next year or so, so that will change things. My daughter's school does claim to meet 100% of need, but we don't have any -- need that is. For which we are grateful. Your comments reflect a lack of information about my community, as well. Staten Island is the wealthiest borough in terms of average income and is the most educated on average, as well. It's not lack of money that sends people to CSI, it's that a very large percentage of the population takes classes for credits to apply to civil service jobs, for which CSI is a great choice, and there isn't a culture of elite education (which is a whole other issue for Zoosersister--how can people like us send a kid to a top college even if she has the credentials?). We can argue till the cows come home, but I'm still not going to be wealthy. My husband and I believe that we are responsible for educating our kids, so when the time came we worked harder and longer to have the money available. My husband's second job is stocking shelves overnight in a supermarket and all of that income goes to the college. How many other people could make that choice and don't? If we didn't work so hard, we would have almost no money for college and have received aid, which is just someone else supporting our choices. Funny that choosing to be responsible for our own kids makes us "rich" and deserving to be looked down upon. So it's not about us "having" money, it's about us working to make money and our daughter working to make money and working to earn scholarships. There is just no way I'll ever believe that a garbageman and an admin are wealthy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If we didn't work so hard, we would have almost no money for college and have received aid, which is just someone else supporting our choices.
[/quote]
If you did the math you would see that you end up with less money in the end. </p>
<p>And you might not have received aid -- you don't know where your daughter would have been accepted. My d's top choice was NYU. I don't think it was too much of a let down to have to end up at Barnard instead --in hindsight clearly a better choice -- but what if she hadn't been accepted to Barnard? What if she had been rejected at the 100% need schools and it was either NYU or her California safeties? NYU's package (or lack thereof) was simply out of question. </p>
<p>I didn't say you are "rich" -- I said you have a lot more income than the families who qualify for financial aid. And I also said -- and will say again -- that private college is a luxury item. Yes, it is a luxury that was made affordable to me (though not without borrowing) because of my daughter's achievement<a href="getting%20into%20her%20100%%20need%20college%20is%20not%20easy">/I</a> -- and it is a luxury that my CSU-attending son does not have, nor do most of the other local kids I know, many of whom do stay at home and attend local community colleges and work part time, because that what their "middle class" incomes limit them to. Mathematically speaking, every $10K I could make in extra income would probably cost me another $2K or so in taxes and increase my EFC by about $4 -- so I'd come out only $4K ahead. But I would still be ahead. As the income went up, so would the tax burden.... but the EFC would only be calculated against the untaxed portion -- and when I hit the point where I no longer qualified for any financial aid whatsoever then the untaxed portion would be mine to keep. Let's say hypothetically that point is reached at $110K -- at that point my tax burden is higher and AMT is also going to kick in somewhere along the way -- but let's say that I am then keeping $6K of every $10K rather than the $4K -- obviously I am better off. (Especially since I would stop having to pay self-employment tax somewhere around the $95K mark). I am not *as rich as I would be if I could just keep 100% of what I earned, but it still doesn't change the equation or the fact that the family earning $200K is better off financially than the family earning $50K. </p>
<p>Median household income for Staten Island, by the way, is $55K; median family income is $65K; per capita income is $24K. The median household income in my city is $71K; median family income is $79K; per capita income is $30K. So obviously I earn well below median for my area, but my "household" consists of only one wage earner and I assume that the median figures incorporate many 2-earner households -- so I'm not losing sleep feeling sorry for myself. </p>
<p>I think the difference is that I can sit on the lower half of this heap and look down and truly appreciate how much better off I am than those below me. Even though my income is $15-$20K below median in my community, I If I suddenly was blessed with an opportunity to earn 6 figures, I doubt that my lifestyle would change very much -- but my status on the economic ladder would.</p>
<p>I do kind of resent the fact that many families with MORE income than I do qualify for more aid because my d's college counts the income of her non-contributing father -- and I felt it was unfortunate that my son did not qualify for financial aid last year because he was treated as a dependent, even though he took no money from me and had been employed full time and self-supporting for 3 full years -- why should our financial aid be calculated based on someone else's income? But that's a different issue than the income formula; it has to do with dependency calculation and *private*college financial aid policies toward divorced parents, which are particularly discriminatory toward kids from single-parent households. It doesn't change my overall viewpoint that people with lower incomes should get more aid than people with higher incomes, and that the federal, taxpayer supported system shouldn't have to subsidize higher-tuition private education in any case.</p>
<p>" I If I suddenly was blessed with an opportunity to earn 6 figures, I doubt that my lifestyle would change very much -- but my status on the economic ladder would."</p>
<p>Where would your income be if you chose to stock shelves in a supermarket overnight for $10 per hour and double time on Sunday? Would you be in the six figure range if you made that choice? How many people below us on the income ladder could rise up higher if they chose to stock shelves overnight for $10 per hour and double time on Sunday? We might have had more money in the end as you say, but it was unacceptable to us to not do everything in our power to pay our kid's bill. We feel blessed to have health and work ethics that allow us to work hard. We may feel differently when we have two kids in college, though. I agree that private school is a luxury item, which is why I have repeatedly described myself as humble and grateful. I do think, however, that we aren't much worse off financially becase I do think four years is realistic in her present school and because she did receive a generous merit scholarship. For which we are very grateful. By the way, I think it absolutely stinks that non-involved parents are counted for financial aid packages. It seems like a terrible wasy of punishing children and responsible parents twice for the screw-ups.</p>
<p>" It doesn't change my overall viewpoint that people with lower incomes should get more aid than people with higher incomes, and that the federal, taxpayer supported system shouldn't have to subsidize higher-tuition private education in any case."</p>
<p>I agree completely that lower-income people should get more aid. Which is why we chose to aim for the higher income. Because right now we can. I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding where anyone should go to college. If it's an imperfect situation, I'm ok with that because private schools should be available to everyone. Not necessarily easy and certainly not free, but available.</p>
<p>I think the underlying truth here is that the cost of college for everyone has been rising far faster than inflation. Everyone except the super wealthy are feeling the pinch. We should not be resenting each other.</p>
<p>I understand Zoosermom's point, but my experience is closer to Calmom's.
We were quite comfortable before 9/11. We didn't live a glamorous life of late model cars or vacations, but money wasn't a constant pressing concern. Since a college education for my children was quite important to me, I pressed for us to pay off mortgage is twelve years, before D went to college. I fully planned to refinance my house for the full amount of college costs I couldn't pay out of pocket.</p>
<p>Fast foward: 9/11 pretty much destroyed H's business. He panicked and made very bad decisions without consulting me, and got himself and his business into hundreds of thouands of dollars of debt. His accountant was unscrupulous and encouraged this because he wanted to take over H's business. Yes, these things happen, and not just on TV. I had to step in and fire all staff and accountant. I won't go into all the gory details but only say that I had to remortgage the house to save H's business and probably his sanity and to pay back some loans or we would have lost our house.</p>
<p>H got so depressed that for one year we lived totally on my income. I even had to cover debt servicing.</p>
<p>Now, because of huge debt we qualify for financial aid. I teach full time at community college, which is fun but grueling; the paper grading alone could kill you. Then I adjunct as many courses a year as I can -- four extra in school year and two extra in summer. I can't get more than this.</p>
<p>I do this even though it raises our EFC because of calculations Calmom gave, although my thinking is intuitive because I don't have her clear headedness for numbers and their relationships. </p>
<p>I would much rather be paying full freight for college than working for the next fifteen years to pay off H's debts. Why? Many reasons. More satisfaction is the primary reason. The kids wouldn't have to work so hard with work-study (not that they complain.) But more importantly, we would have had more choices and have been in the driver's seat. We are at the mercy of the FA system which is not fun with something as important as education. We were so lucky that both kids qualified for need-blind schools promising to meet 100% of financial aid. I am humble and grateful, just as Zoosermom said. But it was touch and go and very painful for all concerned. Schools that were not need blind rejected D out of hand, so her choices were more limited. Actually, same was true for S. You'd think we would have wised up and just applied to need-blind schools. Again, we were lucky because the two schools they attend were their favorites.</p>
<p>NY schools vs. Cal schools: Cal schools better; NY schools cheaper. Both are great safety nets.</p>
<p>Actually, Zoosermom, it took me so long to post that after I read your last post I don't think we really disagree either.</p>
<p>"Fast foward: 9/11 pretty much destroyed H's business. He panicked and made very bad decisions without consulting me, and got himself and his business into hundreds of thouands of dollars of debt. His accountant was unscrupulous and encouraged this because he wanted to take over H's business. Yes, these things happen, and not just on TV. I had to step in and fire all staff and accountant. I won't go into all the gory details but only say that I had to remortgage the house to save H's business and probably his sanity and to pay back some loans or we would have lost our house."</p>
<p>Mythmom, that is positively nightmarish. I'm very sorry that you've had to deal with all of that but am very glad that you were able to work things out so that your kids' education didn't suffer.</p>
<p>Thanks zoosermom. I am so glad, too. It's a miracle, really. And I don't mind working hard either. It's a privilege to send my kids to wonderful colleges. Actually my eyes are tearing thinking about how happy they are. And they are both so responsible about money now. FA is embarrassing to me, but I think learning to be frugal and work for what they have is actually good for my kids. They grew up in a very affluent neighborhood. Can't "downscale" for all the reasons given by us NY and CA folk. </p>
<p>zoosermom: I positively think you and your daughter made the right decision about her education. And I also wish you and your husband didn't have to work so hard. And Calmom, too. I thought that by this age life would be a bit easier. I think I'll work until I'm 75, but again, a privilege to be able too.</p>
<p>It was such a nightmare at times I didn't think I'd survive it, but now I'm a stronger, more flexible and loving person.</p>
<p>"It was such a nightmare at times I didn't think I'd survive it, but now I'm a stronger, more flexible and loving person."</p>
<p>It is amazing that you are able to find good in that situation. I admire and respect that. </p>
<p>I'm ok with the working hard. I was raised to believe that if/when you can, you definitely should. we're also pretty young (I turned 42 last week), so who are we to complain? ZG is in a great place and doing wonderfully. We have no history of higher education, so hubby and I were just terrified that we would be too ignorant to find a way to get ZG to college and were amazed that it's worked out so well. As I've said on other threads, though, we're a little out of our league with the younger one, so next year when it's her turn to start looking, i hope my wonderful CC friends will help us to figure out what is possible.</p>
<p>Yes, and I for one have promised to help. Ooh, you're such a baby! Now I'm envious! You do get tired at 56. (I don't look it, I promise.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where would your income be if you chose to stock shelves in a supermarket overnight for $10 per hour and double time on Sunday?
[/quote]
Er, without a day job? </p>
<p>I'm 53 years old, I wouldn't have the stamina to work those hours on top of my current work. I'd get sick & lose productivity. Since I'm self employed (no sick pay, no vacation pay, no state disability) - I'd simply end up making less money at my day job. In any case, a 40 hour supermarket job @$10 an hour, double time for an 8 hour shift on Sunday, would only yield about $25K a year. Added to the $50K I already earn, that comes to $75K.... still a long way from 6 figures. </p>
<p>Having 2 wage earners in a house is a lot different than having only 1. Being 53 years old is a lot different from being 42. </p>
<p>I kind of resent the insinuation that I'm just being lazy by not taking on a 2nd job involving a lot of physical labor. This isn't a moral debate. I work full time & I have raised 2 kids mostly on my own. I told each of my kids that I would pay for them to attend a UC campus, whatever it cost, and anything else would be dependent on financial aid. (My son had 2 years of a private college on me... but lost the "mommy scholarship" due to his own choices; hence the CSU). I don't think it is my obligation to work a 2nd job in order to finance pay for my kid to go off to a private college. </p>
<p>My d. lucked out. So did my son. My d's good fortune landed her at a top school with an excellent financial aid package her first year, a reasonable one her 2nd. My son's good fortune means that he will graduate debt free with a killer resume -- employment will never be a problem for him. That my son's opportunities arose at the CSU simply give me a clearer view of the situation. I am paying for my d's private college because that is her choice and circumstances make it affordable to us; I am under absolutely no delusion whatsoever that the choice is necessary to her success. If the kid is smart enough to get into Barnard, she would have been smart enough to find all sorts of opportunities via a UC campus or a CSU just as her brother has done.</p>
<p>The point is: a private college tuition is not an entitlement. The FAFSA system is very fair when applied to public colleges -- my FAFSA EFC is very, very reasonable in line with my income. I don't think it is the cost of a public college that is causing people so much grief when they complain about financial aid being "unfair" to the "middle class" and define "middle class" to include people earning $200K. It's the CSS/Profile thing that muddies the waters, but as far as I can tell that's just a way that private colleges can limit the amount of financial aid they offer while at the same time falsely claiming to meet 100% need. They don't, since they define need on their own terms.... but they don't have to, because they are selling a luxury commodity and have every right to set their own terms as to how they price it.</p>
<p>"I kind of resent the insinuation that I'm just being lazy by not taking on a 2nd job involving a lot of physical labor."</p>
<p>There was absolutely no such insinuation. You read that into my post, but it didn't come from me. My point was specifically what I said it was: That finances can be more complicated than the dollar figure on a tax return and that some people who have large incomes are not wealthy.</p>
<p>The question isn't whether a person or family with a high income is "wealthy". It is whether they can afford to pay college tuition. </p>
<p>The FAFSA system assumes that a family earning 6 figures can pay a the child's COA. "EFC" isn't a judgment passed over the family's lifestyle or choices -- it is a determination of how much, based on current income and assets, the government thinks the family can reasonably be expected to contribute to their college costs. As I've noted, the FAFSA figure seems very reasonable to me in line with my income -- I would have to budget carefully and cut some other expenses, but I would not have to borrow to meet my FAFSA EFC. That is not true of the CSS/Profile calculation, which takes into account the paper value of a non-liquid asset (the home in which I reside) and the income of a separate person who did not live in the same household while my daughter was growing up and does not contribute to her college or provide monetary support -- for that, I've got to borrow. Borrowing based on home equity makes some sense; borrowing to compensate for some other person's unwillingness to contribute does not. </p>
<p>You've posted about how hard you work for your income, but you have also posted that you are using that income to pay for your daughter's tuition, so apparently you are, indeed, able to pay the full cost, less your daughter's merit scholarship. You have chosen to work extremely hard for that income rather than simply work regular full time jobs and take the risk that financial aid may not be enough -- that's fine, it is admirable, but it doesn't change the fact that you now have an income that makes you financially able to contribute more toward college, whereas someone who makes less money does not. </p>
<p>I think the problem is that a lot of people are looking for some sense of moral affirmation from the system. They want to be rewarded for hard work and for having been frugal with their money, and they want the system to be punitive to those who (in their eyes) are not working as hard as they could or who made poor financial decisions in the past. And they also want to use it to pay skyrocketing private costs -- a purpose the system was never designed for. There seems to be a growing sense of entitlement that includes the idea of a right to a subsidized private education -- it's as if everyone boarding an airplane thinks they ought to be able to fly first class for an economy fare, just because they see some other passengers getting free upgrades.</p>
<p>"The question isn't whether a person or family with a high income is "wealthy". It is whether they can afford to pay college tuition."</p>
<p>Actually, it IS my question. I came to this thread late and responded very specifically to some of the posts directed at high earners to point out that not everyone with a high income is rich and entitled. It really is that simple.</p>
<p>Calmom, you're pretty touchy on this issue. If it's really not a moral debate for you, then why do you call people who disagree with you whiny and stupid?</p>
<p>I never called anyone whiny. I said it was "stupid" for someone with a $200K income to be envious of someone with a low income who was getting a discounted college education, because they weren't looking at the overall financial picture. That is, it is "stupid" for someone who makes $200K and spends $50K to be envious of someone who makes $50K and spends $10K because $150K is more than $40K -- it would be like my being envious of the people at the supermarket who can pay for their groceries with food stamps, and wishing that I could be as poor as they were so I, too, could get free groceries.</p>