<p>Loan payments and commuting costs do not lower your net income for finaid purposes. (A house worth $400,000 with only $5000 in property taxes! and a company that pays for all your medical insurance? I want to move there!)</p>
<p>
You are wrong there. Maybe what it sounded like to you was not what I intended...or perhaps you just disagree with me. I have not worked up to my income potential because I chose to work only part-time while raising my children, and the trade-off was a lower standard of living and fewer affordable college choices for our kids. But I was there for them and that was our choice. Still, I firmly believe that two parents who had every opportunity unfolded before them have some degree of responsibility to provide for their children. They CAN provide, they just CHOOSE not to. And I am not talking about a Harvard PhD who decides to minister to inmates or a NY physician who practices on a reservation. Those cases are limited, I'm sure.</p>
<p>Many parents cannot provide no matter how long or hard they work. Parents who make $40K because they left lucrative careers to pursue personal interests are not as deserving as parents who make $40 with no education and are working two jobs to make ends meet. And certainly, people living in the lap of luxury while shielding assets in order to gain financial aid are just plain wrong. That's my opinion.</p>
<p>POIH. At the elites both will get full rides. FA was never foolproof. I agree that there are some who don't deserve the FA they get, though not necessarily the way you display it.</p>
<p>Okay, POIH, who is going to pay my Cornell PhD husband what YOU think he should be getting? Tell me, please!</p>
<p>The point is silly anyway, because it's private money and Harvard or any other school can do what they want with it. It's not like some government entitlement program. If someone doesn't like the way rich people (or rich universities or foundations or whoever) want to give away their own money... well, sorry! If it was yours, you'd get to decide! ;)</p>
<p>'rentof2--you are absolutely correct. These are private colleges and they can make and break "rules" as they so choose when awarding financial aid. I still stand behind finances come first; college costs money-think about it when making the decision to go to that name school!</p>
<p>I'm not asking private university to change their funding criteria. I'm just pointing out the ethics of the Ivy graduates who choose to deprive under educated inner city hardworking parents of the Financial Aid by using the legacy route.</p>
<p>I'm surprised at this question...I do NOT agree that "ability" to make money should even be considered. The facts should be considered, not what "could have" or "should have" been. Just because one graduates from an Ivy doesn't guarantee that they will be successful. There are an endless number of external factors that contribute to economic success. Let's look at the opposite of this. Should a kid whose parents graduated from a community college but make a combined income of over $200k be considered for need based aid based on how they "should have" done in theory in the past (that is, since they didn't go to fancy school X, they SHOULD have been making minimum wage).....no of course not. It's not what was then, it's what is NOW that should play a factor.</p>
<p>" I'm just pointing out the ethics of the Ivy graduates who choose to deprive under educated inner city hardworking parents of the Financial Aid by using the legacy rout"</p>
<p>Huh? They aren't taking financial aid from anyone. All of the Ivies guarantee to meet 100% of students' documented need. All of the Ivies also have need-blind admissions.</p>
<p>My best friends parents both have PhDs. One from Harvard, one from Berkeley. They earn less than 60k. They like how they live. He doesn't see a problem with it. He's probably going to go to Cal, and is fine with that. I don't see it as a problem either. His mother is full time nanny, and his father is a professor at a local university.</p>
<p>However, there was another student with divorced parents, who had changed custody from his father to his mother (his mother makes less than 35k a year, while his father makes 200+k a year) and then applied to UCLA. He got in with an 1850 on the SAT, and he is a 4th generation Italian American. He is not paying a cent.</p>
<p>Northstarmom: WRONG! Admissions are neither 100% need blind nor 100% legacy-blind.</p>
<p>So a child of Ivy graduate who is making less than $60,000 not only taking the Financial Aid from another deserving inner city parent child but also the place of a better deserving full paying student.</p>
<p>POIH, the top schools are need blind. If anything, they will give those who are disadvantaged more consideration than those who have the advantages of an economically rich home life. They are definitely not legacy blind; at least most schools are not. </p>
<p>I don't think your conclusion is correct either. There is no system in place to decide who should be making how much money. It's how much you make and have that determines financial aid. If you want to take the consequences of a lower income life and take the risks of having your children and/yourself have to compete for scholarships, freebies and discounts, that is your business. There are inherent penalties to taking that route.</p>
<p>I certainly never said that admissions are legacy blind.
When it comes to Ivies, being poor is a plus. It won't keep you out of Ivies, but may help one be admitted because Ivies want to have extremely diverse student bodies -- in all meanings of the word. It's hard for them to find qualified low income applicants.</p>
<p>POIH, do you think admissions officers are stupid? They give way more of a bump to being poor (pc term socioeconomically disadvantaged), and rightly so, than being a legacy and furthermore they won't give the bump of being poor to the child of an Ivy League graduate save really, really, extenuating circumstances that go far beyond making under 60k. Also, nearly all top schools are need blind or so they say.</p>
<p>Mors: POIH is talking abotu financial aid, not admissions. In FA, 60,000 a year is 60,000 a year no matter where the parents got there degree. AS IT SHOULD BE. </p>
<p>I'm an art major at an ivy league institution. I probably won't make very much money. But does that not mean I'm not incredibly good at what I do? Does that not mean I shouldn't do what I love? Does that not mean I'm not infinitely glad I'm getting a great, well rounded education and entering society as an educated woman? </p>
<p>And what is this anscestry house thing you are talking about? You really sound like a 5 year old.</p>
<p>I was responding specifically to this:</p>
<p>
[Quote]
WRONG! Admissions are neither 100% need blind nor 100% legacy-blind.</p>
<p>So a child of Ivy graduate who is making less than $60,000 not only taking the Financial Aid from another deserving inner city parent child but also the place of a better deserving full paying student.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Since his point about FA is moot since everyone is getting the FA they need/deserve he changed it to admissions.</p>
<p>POIH, you obviously have no clue how financial aid is truly determined and therefore, cannot comprehend the real travisties of financial aid policies.</p>
<p>I mentioned this thread to my FA co-worker...who has been in the industry for over 10 years. She laughed hysterically and said (with tons of sarcasism) POIH's concept sounds perfect, then no one would EVER get financial aid and we could relax. If FA were based solely on one's earning potential, then there would not be many who qualified for need-based aid. Even those who are destitute (extremely poor) have the potential to earn a very decent living, if they "would just change their lifestyle and get out of the gutter. They could have gone to college right after high school and earned their degree. Heck, they could have stayed in high school instead of dropping out so they could work a minimum-wage job." The problem is...how would they achieve this, it isn't really realistic for many given social and economic factors. </p>
<p>I remember when I was in high school and they opened the first McDonald's in my home town. The manager had her Masters Degree from a prestigious California University. However, she had found it very difficult to find work after graduation that related to her field of study. She didn't want to manage a McDonald's restaurant...she wanted something that would provide her a six figure income (don't we all). The reality is that we can't always get the jobs we think we should have. I know I think I deserve more than the <$30k my job pays me....and I could probably make more if I moved somewhere else....but I really like small towns where danger isn't lurking on every street corner...where my children can run and play and experience life instead of death. I'll keep my "pay-cut" and live below my potential just to provide my children a better life.</p>
<p>also, if I understand FA calculations correctly, if the family POIH describes is living in an ancestral home worth $1,000,000 that is going to be an asset considered before granting aid.</p>
<p>and I'm not thinking a low income family such that OP described in #2 could qualify for mortgage to buy $1,000,000 home.</p>
<p>I know of a family who lead a nice life, but own own business...very bright daughter had less choices for college as parents expected aid and she did not qualify due to the business assets - but got merit aid - just not at school she would have liked to attend...</p>
<p>ParentOfIvyHope can present absolutely no concrete examples of somebody who does this. While he originally started out talking about my parents, he has now completely gone off base.</p>
<p>We hardly live the lifestyle of somebody making $200,000/year. We live the lifestyle of somebody making...ready?...$60,000 a year. Exactly what we make.</p>
<p>POIH, you keep coming up with ridiculous and completely unsupported so-called "situations." I think it's unfair that a kid with green skin and purple eyes could get in ahead of me at Yale. We should do something about that. It is sooooooo frustrating!</p>
<p>POIH- First of all, financial aide at Harvard is for ALL students who are accepted and qualify for it. (look on their website for specifics), therefore it's not taking money away from anyone PERIOD! Harvard has a big enough endowment that they could pay full tuition for the entire student body for many years to come and not run out.
As for these so called parents you keep condeming... not everyone is obsessed with making lots of money and keeping up with the Jones.... thank God there are people in the world like southeasttitan's parents who care enough about their children, their community and the world that they make sacrifices in order to contribute their time and energy into making a difference. Money isn't everything, in fact I know a lot of very unhappy kids whose parents are constantly working and have no time for them. Is this a gift to be able to send your kids to Ivies if you've worked so much that you never see them? My kids would much rather have me around than the latest "material item" I could buy them if I chose to work. (And yes I have a Masters Degree but am a stay at home mom, my husband works.). What a sad world this would be if all we cared about was making lots of money. Frankly I think you should quit worrying about who is getting more than you, its very immature. Try to focus on something more positive. Southeasttitan- ignore it- you don't need to justify anything, good luck in school and Enjoy!</p>