<p>I recently came across a thread where a student indicates that his parent both graduate of the top Ivy school earns collectively less than $60000 and so they won't have to contribute a penny towards the tuition.</p>
<p>Isn't it a fraud? It is like Obama children trying to get the advantage of being URM when it is time for Ivies admissions.</p>
<p>Parent ability to make money should be considered while making decision regarding need based financial aid. </p>
<p>Two top Ivies graduate not making $60000 because of their laid back lifestyle is not same as two hardworking college drop outs to make end meet.</p>
<p>It is sooooooooooooooooooooooo FRUSTRATING.</p>
<p>I don't see any fraud in either of the situations you related. First of all, there is no obligation for parents to earn any thresh hold of income. If you want to take on all of the disadvantages of earning a low income, you are certainly eligible to take a stab at getting any aid dollars. Also Obama or anyone of URM heritage is not" trying to get the advantage" if being URM; they are of URM heritage for a number of schools. </p>
<p>There are many out there making low salaries who are doing work that is very valuable to society. Who is supposed to make the requirements as to what a given person should be making?</p>
<p>Wow. H has a PhD from an Ivy, and earns essentially nothing. I didn't know he was obligated to earn a certain salary. Who made that rule, and how do we get someone to enforce it by paying him whatever that certain salary is?!</p>
<p>There seems to be a case of a student of outgoing batch in Texas where the student didn't get admission into any of the top school HYPMS and it seems that the parent left the job and helping the student do activity and reducing their net income to less than $60000 their by making the student eligible for 100% of the need money.</p>
<p>What do you think of that? At least college admission officer were able to see thru that.</p>
<p>owlice: There is a difference between trying and not trying. There are bums on the street everywhere. Many of these people can get work and make a decent livings but they still prefer to beg.</p>
<p>There are lot of skilled people (Ivy graduate) those who also choose to beg big financial need money from the colleges instead of working their butt off to send their children to colleges.</p>
<p>You might get offended by the bums on the street but not by the Ivies graduates who are manipulating the colleges.</p>
<p>I'm offended not by the "bums on the street," but by the society that makes the streets their home.</p>
<p>Do you insist that all stay-at-home spouses go out and get jobs, rather than not work? After all, they "can get work and make a decent livings [sic]."</p>
<p>To the extent that financial aid was intended to help the "disadvantaged" poor, then I understand OP's frustration. While I believe the original intent of FA was to do just that, i.e., provide educational opportunities to segments of our society who would not otherwise be able to attain them, it has evolved to an "advantage-blind" if you will, grant program that benefits both the opportunity-deprived inner-city child as well as the offspring of elite u. graduates, who would likely thrive whether they attended cc/state u. or Harvard. The process is devoid of value judgments, and consists only of income verification.</p>
<p>The case in Texas may have been impacted by too much parental intervention in the application process, but doubtful it was because the father did not have a job. Unless he let the colleges all know that he was deliberately doing this to get the money, which is doubtful. We really do not know why the young man was not accepted to those school, either; it is all conjecture. I will say, however, that it is not because of parental income. when schools say they are need blind, they are pretty reliable in this regard.</p>
<p>There are many artists, inventors, musicians, social workers, folks with a cause or a dream who have sacrificed income for pursuing the same. They have to take the consequences each day of not earning as much money as many of their schoolmates. Anyone who wants to take that course in life is welcome to do so. What kind of a process would it be to try to calculate the potential of each family? It's tough enough coming up with an equitable system in just calculating need with all the factors going into those equations.The financial aid folks have their hands full interpreting those numbers as they exist and sniffing out true fraud without having to getting into the "shoulda, couldas" </p>
<p>Where a child of two underpaid ivy educated parents would not get extra consideration is in the area of being educationally deprived. It would be expected that with two college graduates, that the child was given reasonable if not exceptional cultural and educational opportunities which is often not the case in families where the parents have had little education.</p>
<p>OP, should I be giving my D's grant back because I chose to stay home for many years? After all, if I'd stayed at work I'd have made hundreds of thousands of dollars I <em>could have</em> saved for her education ... and I wouldn't be making less than a hundred bucks a day WHEN I substitute teach. The college didn't bother to ask for my life story. Thank goodness.</p>
<p>I understand the OP's frustration, but it is misplaced. I honestly don't think the student is getting the advantages of living as a low income student when it comes to admission time. The colleges know that this student has very likely been raised to respect education by highly educated parents. Also, chances are, they live in an environment not typical of the low-income student. What they do get is the legacy hook. As for the finaid aspect, it really shouldn't matter... it's not as if you're getting less money because they are getting more (at least at top schools). If I could wave a wand and make everyone attend my college for free I'd do it.</p>
<p>It is sad that such greatly educated parent rely on FA to send their children to college. Think of those really deserving inner city students either born to single parent or no parent at all trying to make it day and night and won't get the FA because of such highly educated parent children who will take a break from making money for a year by doing so called social services while making profit in other years as they know how to well manage (mis) their account (Books).
I'm shocked to learn that beneficiaries of Top school 100% aid program are their legacy like most of the beneficiaries of URM admissions are children of Obama's and similar caliber URMs.
It is really shameful of these people to rob really needy students of these benefits. That is why the conditions in the inner city never improve as help never reach those who really need it most.</p>
<p>By your definition, then, no Ivy league graduate should become a social worker, a day care provider, a teacher, an arts administrator, a nonprofit social activist, an artist, a musician. They should all become bankers, lawyers and doctors (oh, and by the way, I know a lot of lawyers who make less than $60,000 per year, but why should a poor defendant be entitled to a well-educated Legal Aid attorney?) so that their kids won't need FA.</p>
<p>I guess the Ivies shouldn't be offering an education in areas that generally don't lead to high-paying jobs, then. No music, no philosophy, no art. Classics? Gone. East Asian Studies? History? Why bother with them. Linguistics? Theater? Studio Art? Ciao, baby! Religion? Oh, get a grip!</p>
<p>Yes, what a wonderful, wonderful world we'd have, if the only reason for getting an education was to rake in the cash!</p>
<p>Obviously, people have the right to live and work where they want to, and that is part of what makes us who we are. You are focusing on the low salary so that the kids can get financial aid. Well, the low salaries must have been their situation for quite a while, and so they have felt the consequences of those life choice for many years. I teach HS. My salary is pitiful compared to my brothers and certainly most of my friends. I could have been a doctor or lawyer, but I decided I wanted to teach. Yes, my D has a nice financial aid package from an Ivy League school. That's the way the system works. I pay about 1/3 of my income to her tuition, and the percentage is about right, compared to others'. I do have a very good friend, though, whose daughter is starting school without any financial aid. They have to take out whoppers of loans to pay for her school because they can't put 1/3 of their income towards tuition. It goes to pay for their large apartment in a great neighborhood in the city. And that was their choice.</p>
<p>Don't know what thread you're referring to, OP, but if the parents cut back on their income in order to get a free ride, they may well be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Even with taxes and having to pay for all or part of college, more income is more income. The exception would be if the parents really were close to an absolute $60k cutoff for full-ride aid. There was a similar discussion when Harvard announced their "no more than 10% of household income" for households earning up to $180k. Well, what if your household earns $181k? It would certainly be a much better idea to lessen earning potential by that little bit in order to pay $18k instead of $50k a year. </p>
<p>In this scenario, the parents also need to consider what happens when they're done paying for college. If they've stepped down their earning power to qualify for need-based FA, and want to step back up now that there's no FAFSA to fill out, they won't necessarily be magically able to step back up to their pre-college earning levels. </p>
<p>All of this, and keeping in mind that it was apparently a student reporting how his/her parents were gaming the system makes me take the entire thing with about a pound of salt.</p>
<p>One more thing (I know; I'm posting too much here!) Failing to earn up to one's "potential", however that is defined, is not "fraud." Fraud is failing to report income one does have or hiding assets one owns. It is not "fraud" not to report what one does not earn but might have earned under other circumstances.</p>
<p>I'm a lawyer who no longer practices law. I make a lot less money that I would if I had worked in a corporate law firm in NY for the past 20 years or so. Must I put down that corporate law salary so as not to commit "fraud"? My h is also a lawyer who works in his own practice and earns a whole lot less than he would in a Boston law firm. Must he put down the large law firm salary so as not to commit "fraud"? Who decides what the "earning potential" is?</p>
<p>this is a fun thread! Add me to the list of bum parents - stay at home mom with an engineering degree. But I guess it's OK, since we don't qualify for need based aid. D did get a merit scholarship though, what a travesty since we could have paid her full tuition! What about athletic scholarships for kids who don't need them? Or lower admission standards for athletes? Wasn't the OP asking a while ago about what sports the child should play to get admitted to Ivy schools? </p>
<p>Edit: No, it was how to best use her skills to get into Ivy league. Everybody uses what they have in admissions.</p>
<p>If a parent has enough foresight to be able to target is salary to be just under a given thresh hold, fine for him. It's such a moving target that it is difficult to get it right. You cannot predict where your student is going to end up going or if the guidelines are going to change. So, no, you would not get penalized for deliberately earning less to qualify for financial age.</p>
<p>OP, I think you're pretty confused (and not just from this thread alone). The money that is going to the children of Ivy Grads is not being taken away from an inner city teenager. Period. If both kids come from families with sub 60k income at HYPS they are both getting a free ride. Thus, you are wrong in saying that the money doesn't get to them, though you are right that there really isn't any progress in changing the status of inner city youth, though that's for another thread and another time. Also, I believe you are mixing this with admission prospects. There's no way the child of an Ivy Grad (well basically no, there are always extenuating circumstances) will receive a leg up in the admissions office for being disadvantaged. No way, colleges aren't stupid. On your application it asks for where your parents attended school and their highest level of education. In fact, it doesn't ask how much money your parents make on your college application (it does on finaid which is separate from admissions at the top generous schools). Lastly, ultimately it is the parents fault, not the child's, that for whatever reason, the parents cannot afford the full sticker-price. I repeat, not the child's. While I do agree to an extent, because of how I was brought up culturally, that it is a shame if two Ivy league grads cannot afford to send their kids to the college of their choice, (which in my culture would make them a failure in that they weren't able to provide their kids the opportunities they were provided by their parents) I personally couldn't care less as long as it wasn't hurting someone else's financial aid.</p>