<p>"send me that million and I will happily withdraw my daughter's financial aid app and pay full cost"</p>
<p>There is another way. You could sent 40 years working 70+ hours/week trying to get ahead and find that most of what happens is your money goes to taxes. I don't regret those taxes that help others get ahead. I do get ****ed when I think that my tax contributions may have instead gone to munitions dumped on Iraq.</p>
<p>I hear sympathy being expected for families who can afford- to pay 1/4 of their after tax salary for colleges, and that 1/4 covers * everything!*, but when lower income families pay 1/4 of their after tax salary, and have to borrow money to do so, they are expected to be ashamed because the college and perhaps even the govt picks up the rest?
Am I hearing right?</p>
<p>I realize that some people always notice others have more and some people are happy with what they need and don't get fixated on what they "want".
Its just a matter of philosophy I guess.
It isn't a matter of income.</p>
<p>My grandparents also saved everything, and left literally millions to their only child (who is determined to spend all of it- and looks to have just about accomplished that)- but they were happy to help whom ever needed it & if one of their great grandchildren had needed help with college, they would have said that is what was there for.</p>
<p>They also paid cash for their home, living relatively frugally in a nice but modest neighborhood in Seattle, not taking vacations, except for their 50th anniv to Hawaii and driving back to Missouri to see relatives every summer ( just the time of year * I want* to be in the midwest ;) )</p>
<p>I take after them a lot I guess. I don't like asking anyone for help- although if my kids qualify for aid, I will certainly accept it.
We didn't pay cash for our house- I don't see how you can pay bills and still have enough money to do something like that- true housing was cheaper then but Im sure it still was more expensive to live in Seattle, than in St Joe County, Mo. But they both worked & banked one salary- always.
probably good advice for a lot of us</p>
<p>Calmom, I don't know. You make some good arguments.</p>
<p>Let's see...
1. You work hard, live frugally, invest wisely, and you pay full pop.
2. You work hard, spend everything you make, invest poorly if at all, and
you get a discount.</p>
<ol>
<li>You make $50,000 and you get a discount.</li>
<li><p>You make $150,000 but you have very large future obligations, like taking care of a parent, a sibling, a child, no or very little discount.</p></li>
<li><p>You make $50,000 but live in a low cost area, You get a large discount.</p></li>
<li><p>You make $100,000 but live in a very expensive area. You get a small discount.</p></li>
<li><p>You make $100,000 but you don't have a retirement plan and you have to fund it with your own money. Little discount.</p></li>
<li><p>You make $50,000, but you get a pension, maybe even a pension that is inflation adjusted. You get a large discount.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Are any of these statements incorrect?</p>
<p>I like the one where you make $100,000, live in a low cost area, and have good flagship State U's with very low tuition. I wish I had thought of that one before.</p>
<p>"I hear sympathy being expected for families who can afford- to pay 1/4 of their after tax salary for colleges, and that 1/4 covers everything!, but when lower income families pay 1/4 of their after tax salary, and have to borrow money to do so, they are expected to be ashamed because the college and perhaps even the govt picks up the rest?
Am I hearing right?"</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Let's see...
1. You work hard, live frugally, invest wisely, and you pay full pop.
2. You work hard, spend everything you make, invest poorly if at all, and
you get a discount.</p>
<p>In the 2nd case- they are taking a chance that their child will get accepted to one of the few schools that meets 100% of need.
That is a big chance.
Additionally- while retirement savings aren't considered- income is & if they are earning an equal amount to the first family- when they both apply to FAFSA schools- wouldn't their EFC be the same?</p>
<p>1. You make $50,000 and you get a discount.
2. You make $150,000 but you have very large future obligations, like taking care of a parent, a sibling, a child, no or very little discount.</p>
<p>Some schools do take unusual expenses into consideration- but what about the family making $50,000 who also have a parent to support but also haven't been able to provide their kids with the kind of background that would enable admittance at one of those few colleges that meet 100% need?</p>
<p>1. You make $50,000 but live in a low cost area, You get a large discount.
2. You make $100,000 but live in a very expensive area. You get a small discount.</p>
<p>This has been pointed out before- higher cost areas, often ahve more resources to put into schools, more jobs means more tax base and more amenities. Lower cost area, lower quality everything.
ISnt that why so many people live in a high cost area- despite that higher cost? There must be * some perks* they are getting out of it.</p>
<p>I really don't know much about the retirement part to comment- other than I didn't think 401K or IRAs were counted, except towards the amount that you were able to put into them for the year that is being looked at :)</p>
<p>"ISnt that why so many people live in a high cost area- despite that higher cost? There must be some perks they are getting out of it."</p>
<p>Many of us live where we were able to find employment. And, no, there are not necessarily any perks to living in a high cost area. The one I can't understand is sewers. Had them everywhere I lived except on Long Island.</p>
<p>"A Primer on Economics for Financial Aid Professionals" </p>
<p>goes into some of the policy trade-offs that set financial aid rules.</p>
<p>I live in one of the higher cost areas in the country- not quite at the level of northpark or whereever it was but our sales tax is about 9%, milk is about $5 or 6 for a gallon and gas is $3.
But the area is beautiful, there are lots of bookstores and friendly people and we don't need air conditioning or even heat- really.</p>
<p>Denser areas, ahve a wider selection of jobs to choose from.
In more rural, cheaper areas, jobs are dependent on whatever factory happens to be in town, as long as it decides to stay there.
When it moves, there goes your economy, and there isn't necessarily much to replace it.
Many jobs are pretty portable, and I know that my D and her friends are thinking of careers with that in mind.</p>
<p>Working as an actuary with Starbucks for instance. Headquarters all over the world, anytime you get bored you can ask to be transferred- someone whose background is less educated perhaps driving a forklift for Dole, may find that when they move the plant to Chile, they don't need him anymore .</p>
<p>I suppose it does suck for someone like a stockbroker- who I suppose has to work in a large city with a business district- but if you are smart enough to do that - you probably realized that going in ;)</p>
<p>When I got out of college I picked a career which I thought would give me freedom to get a job almost anywhere. Our healthcare economics sort of wrecked that so I decided to advance by going to graduate school. Turns out that even more restricted employment opportunities. I had a postdoc job in Arkansas for less than two years. Took another academic job in Kansas City for exactly 1 year before deciding on industry. It seems that every company I worked for changed ownership and downsized. I worked in LA, Chicago, Phoenix, and have had two jobs on Long Island. Hopefully, my current employer will last until I can consider retirement. Then I will probably move to Portland, OR. I have never worked anywhere nearly as difficult as Long Island.</p>
<p>Dancersmom: Great Post!</p>
<p>Just got back on CC and read the above. Agree Newsday article was lax in its factfinding (and darling H was a Newsday paperboy many decades ago). Problem is, none of us believe we can pay what we're expected to pay. So we make some tough decisions and we guide our children and we ask them to pay part (oh the horror) or we extend our working years to give our offspring a better life. I went to a SUNY school (all my parents could afford even with the regents scholarship), was very unfulfilled and transferred to a different state's school, where I paid with loans and jobs, but was happy both intellectually and socially. Was it worth it? For me, definitely. H graduated from the same SUNY school and thinks he got a fantastic education for the money, and he did. Two different people, two different views. </p>
<p>As for LI's high costs, yes the real estate taxes are absolutely insane. But that's to pay for the teachers' salaries that are more than twice those here in our state, their union demands, their unreal benefits, etc. We have LI teachers in our family and they will never know what it's like to work for a corporation where you have to pay for your medical benefits and don't have any job security. Aside from RE taxes, the cost of living isn't as high compared to the rest of the US as they tend to think. Gas is higher, groceries cheaper. The sad truth is that many LI'ers think that the world ends past Manhattan and they will never know what the cost of living is in other places, especially along the east coast.</p>
<p>I realize that there will be fellow CC'ers who don't like my post, but after 21 years on LI, with all family from both sides still there, it's tough to always hear the same complaints about how expensive it is. Live with it, enjoy the many beautiful town beaches and proximity to the greatest city in the world(another reason for the high taxes) or move!</p>
<p>"Let's see...
1. You work hard, live frugally, invest wisely, and you pay full pop.
2. You work hard, spend everything you make, invest poorly if at all, and
you get a discount.</p>
<ol>
<li>You make $50,000 and you get a discount.</li>
<li><p>You make $150,000 but you have very large future obligations, like taking care of a parent, a sibling, a child, no or very little discount.</p></li>
<li><p>You make $50,000 but live in a low cost area, You get a large discount.</p></li>
<li><p>You make $100,000 but live in a very expensive area. You get a small discount.</p></li>
<li><p>You make $100,000 but you don't have a retirement plan and you have to fund it with your own money. Little discount.</p></li>
<li><p>You make $50,000, but you get a pension, maybe even a pension that is inflation adjusted. You get a large discount."</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Now take all those numbers with $50,000 in them and note that, when it comes to prestige colleges, unless the kids are athletes or URMs, they virtually don't exist, so the discount is a non-issue. They don't get ANY discount, because they don't attend. Doesn't matter if they live in a low cost or high cost area.</p>
<p>State U? At University of Washington, if you have a family of 4, you get NO discount if you make $50k - the "discount cutoff" is currently $45.6. Meanwhile, the regressive taxation is such that the poor family, whose kids have to work rather than going to the community college, is subsidzing the millionaire's kid at UW. Doesn't matter whether they are living in a low-cost or high-cost area.</p>
<p>So exactly what planet are we talking about?</p>
<p>Dstark, how about this:<br>
I work really hard, make $50K, am a single parent, have 2 kids in college, AND I live in one of the highest-cost areas of the country. Where do I fit in your little equation? </p>
<p>The reason I don't have much sympathy for the "high cost of living" argument is that I live in the SF bay area and my income is pretty close to the median for this area -- which means that a lot of other people are also managing on similar incomes. (I mean, "median" is still way above the poverty line). </p>
<p>I don't see any "upper middle class" people living in my neighborhood -- at least not that I am aware of -- but I know what neighborhoods they do live in. I don't really have to drive very far to find those neighborhoods -- but it is pretty obvious to me they are living in bigger houses with nicer furnishings. </p>
<p>The financial aid system is structured to draw about 90% of the EFC from income figures and 10% or less from the asset figures, so you can bluster all you want about the fictional family who makes the same but spends more and gets a big discount on their education -- but they don't exist. The bottom line is that families with lower EFCs are earning a whole lot less money than the ones with the high EFCs. And often working just as hard -- or harder- for fewer dollars. </p>
<p>Personally, as a former lawyer who chose to spend most of my career representing the indigent, I don't understand why a lawyer who works for the legal aid society should be paid less than a lawyer who works for firms handling Microsoft antitrust litigation ... but that's the way it is:
[quote]
According to the NALP 2006 Public Sector and Public Interest Attorney Salary Report, the median entry-level salary for an attorney at a civil legal services organization is $36,000; an attorney with 11-15 years of experience can expect a salary of $55,000. The median entry-level salary for public defenders is about $43,000; with 11-15 years of experience, the median is $65,000. The salary progression for state and local prosecuting attorneys is similar, starting in the mid 40</p>
<p>The bottom line is that everyone: rich, middle or poor, would PREFER not to pay anything out of their hard earned savings for their kids' education. It is better not to begrudge one side or the other. The reality is that life is not all about a dollar figure - they are our kids for goodness sake! We want to do the best we can for them. No one should be berated for feeling angry or resentful that s/he may not be able to provide as much as s/he would like for the people they love the most. Its human nature to feel this way. IMHO</p>
<p>The last attorney I saw hired in our state's attorney general's office required two years of experience, and had a salary of $42k. There were more than 300 applicants. (They should have gone into nursing. ;))</p>
<p>Fine Mini, then change the numbers. We are talking about principles, make up your own numbers.</p>
<p>Oh. I just read from tokenadult's link. All the stuff, I mentioned, what do you know, also mentioned.</p>
<p>So I can stop arguing this nonsense.</p>
<p>Tokenadult, thanks for the link. :)</p>
<p>
Don't a lot of people who live on Long Island work in Manhattan? And isn't it somewhat cheaper -- and a shorter commute -- to live in Brooklyn or the Bronx?</p>
<p>Mini... now you can see why I quit practicing law a dozen years ago... I finally figured out that the stress wasn't worth the money I didn't make.</p>
<p>"Fine Mini, then change the numbers. We are talking about principles, make up your own numbers."</p>
<p>The principle is that low-income parents shouldn't be subsidizing high-income ones. That would be the first principle.</p>
<p>The second principle is that there should be transparency in admissions, so that low-income folks don't get snookered into feeling they have an "equal chance' of benefitting from that so-called discount.</p>
<p>The third principle is that the list price should reflect the rise in income/assets of those who can afford the list price. That would mean they should be MUCH higher than they are now.</p>
<p>The fourth principle is that schools should end the need-blind lie. There isn't a single school in the country that is need-blind (well, maybe some community colleges and perhaps, to some extent, the service academies); the only question is how they use the information.</p>
<p>The fifth principle is that public universities should recognize as a major public purpose, maybe the highest public purpose, preventing or ameliorating the creation of a permanent economic underclass that drains state resources. </p>
<p>Could go for 10, if you like.</p>
<p>Ist principal, I agree, all other things being equal.
2nd principal, I agree.
3rd principal, ridiculous.
4th principal, I agree.
5th principal, I agree.</p>