<p>Garland, I did add those words in (). :)</p>
<p>No offense, but as I read this thread I feel like the biggest "whiners" are the ones laying out their "woe-is-me" stories. Its like, "you think you've got it bad, well look at me..." I mean seriously folks, you gotta have a little admiration for those who have worked hard in school and on the job to earn that lifestyle that puts them out of FA range, don't you?</p>
<p>I think it's GREAT! (those private schools wouldn't exist without 'em.)</p>
<p>Bay, I have a lot of admiration for those who worked hard in school and on the job to put themselves out of FA range. I just wish they'd accept their happy circumstances. It's hard to feel sorry for someone who is contemplating tapping their home equity credit line (house bought with a taxpayer subsidy, by the way.... the interest on the mortgate is deductible) when you hear about people with no house to tap.</p>
<p>dstark -- thanks for sharing your own background. Here is what I see: the cost of attending community college in California is something like $26 per unit (so around $400 for a full time course load for a semester) -- and tuition for Berkeley is something less than $8000/year. This is a lot more than the $750/year I paid at Berkeley in the 70's..... but not a huge difference when I factor in inflation. The bigger change in the UC/CSU cost of attendance are charges for room & board, and that really is much more a reflection of local housing costs than college costs. That is, when I attended Berkeley I lived one block off campus in a fairly roomy one-bedroom apartment that rented for $145/month -- I'm sure the same apartment rents for close to 10 times as much these days.</p>
<p>I qualify for financial aid to send my kids to Berkeley -- but if I didn't, on my income I still think I could come up with tuition and help a lot with housing, if my kids were willing (like you) to do their part with jobs and earnings. Your situation was rough, but I'll bet when you looked around most of your classmates were in the same boat -- they had to work to earn the money to attend college, and their families were only making modest contributions (if any), certainly not footing the whole bill for them. </p>
<p>One big change is that in all my years as an undergraduate and then a law student on UC campuses, I never met a single student who resented the fact that they were attending a UC rather than a private college. Everyone was very proud and grateful for the opportunity to attend the UC. </p>
<p>My cousins in New York attended SUNY's, again without complaint. </p>
<p>What seems to have changed is the attitude: now, everyone not only wants private colleges.... but somehow there is an expectation that the elite, private ought to be "affordable" as well -- and "affordable" without borrowing, without undergoing any sort of lifestyle change. </p>
<p>And, at least on these boards, I've seen many parents say that they don't want their kids taking on loans, or having to work while school. </p>
<p>Would you be willing to tell your own kid what your parents told you, when it comes to financing the education? I am asking this rhetorically -- but the point is, I DID tell my own kids something like that: I would pay the cost of the in-state college, they would be expected to take on loans and work-study, and attending private schools was entirely dependent on financial aid. Both of my kids had to turn down their top choice colleges, after being admitted, because of inadequate financial aid awards. </p>
<p>I really think that the families who covet our eligibility for financial aid are not seeing the whole picture. Just about every need-based award is built on loans and work-study, and to those of us who really <em>need</em> that money, turning down the loan is not an option. My daughter has 2 jobs and $2600 debt from her first year of college -- the debt will be something around $17000 by the time she graduates. And these are numbers from a college that has very generous financial aid policies -- the very best that we were offered. Most colleges expected a much higher level of "self-help" (loans + work) in the package. </p>
<p>For those that complain about the "unfairness" of the process.... do you want your kids to take on that debt? Do you want your kid to work every afternoon after class for $9/hour like mine does? Did your kid have a job standing on her feet all day working retail last summer like mine did? (So far my daughter has become an expert on what it is she does NOT want to do for a living). </p>
<p>The FAFSA system does not provide enough money to make private tuitions affordable -- a maximum Pell grant is around $4000 -- see:
<a href="http://www.finaid.org/educators/pellgrant.phtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.finaid.org/educators/pellgrant.phtml</a></p>
<p>add in an Academic Competitiveness grant of $750 and you STILL don't have enough grant money to pay for tuition at Berkeley. Everything else comes from loans, plus the Cal Grant -- and what Berkeley is willing to allot from institutional funds. </p>
<p>Transfer that to a private college -- out-of-state, and we Californian's lose the Cal Grant ..... and the bottom line is that the "financial aid" we want is NOT the federal aid determined by the FAFSA methodology, but the institutional aid offered by the college out of its own endowment or scholarship funds. And that is determined in part by a system that allows richer families to get credit for whatever they pay for private schooling for their kids -- which is why many on CC report that they come out ahead on the IM calculation. So it seems to me that the system <em>does</em> take into account at least some cost of living factors. </p>
<p>I don't think the grass would look so green if you were living on my side of the fence. Especially when you add debt load into the picture.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really don't think the "wealthy" feel an entitlement to an affordable education for their kids, I think they would just feel better if the "pain" of it seemed the same for everyone.</p>
<p>but it wasn't my impression that FA was supposed to be based on emotional factors, just numbers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wanting others to feel "pain" when paying for college tuition isn't emotional?</p>
<p>$60K may be plenty in some areas-not in mine
& a single parent has a much more difficult time raising children- than one who has the emotional/physical & financial support of a partner.
even without the low end income, i would say single parents "struggle"</p>
<p>"My cousins in New York attended SUNY's, again without complaint. </p>
<p>What seems to have changed is the attitude: now, everyone not only wants private colleges.... but somehow there is an expectation that the elite, private ought to be "affordable" as well -- and "affordable" without borrowing, without undergoing any sort of lifestyle change."</p>
<p>When I went to high in New York City, it was thought highly desirable to attend CCNY, Hunter College, Brooklyn College, or Baruch College - for free. To this day, Baruch produces more financial professionals employed in NYC than any college or university in the country, and likely has more internships than any other as well. Anyway, those who didn't get in, but whose parents could afford it, might go to NYU, though it was thought of as decidedly inferior, and mostly a place where rich folks from out-of-state might come to experience New York. It was thought much more impressive to get a scholarship to attend Harpers (SUNY Binghampton), though lots of folks wondered what the draw of Binghampton would be when you had New York City!</p>
<p>Well, Stern & Tisch at NYU got a lot of money, but for the rest, NYU hasn't changed very much, really, except that tuition has skyrocketed as more and more folks want to experience NYC. And now lots of folks who might in previous times have gotten great educations at the equivalents of CCNYs in their own states (if they are lucky enough to have them), complain that they can't afford the $200k for NYU. </p>
<p>Well, if you know you don't have $200k (even if you could be admitted), it's not worth complaining about.</p>
<p>I'm in a similar position to Calmom. My older kid won the financial aid lotto. My youngest, unless her gymnastics works out, likely won't. She knows that she'll attend Western Washington University where she'll get a good education, or UWashington if her test scores come up a bit, and if the financial aid gods shine down upon us again, maybe somewhere else. We can afford (barely) the in-state college, and are happy to be able to do so. For the rest, we'll see what we will see. </p>
<p>We will not even consider "paying high prices to bear the college burden", and have no guilt in saying so to our kids, and can hardly imagine why anyone would resent being called upon to break the family piggyback to do so, when they don't have to. If you are going to do it, REVEL in it rather than complaining.</p>
<p>So, speaking personally, I still don't see the big deal.</p>
<p>Calmom, I think inflation only covers about half that tuition increase. Housing has gone up 10 times.</p>
<p>My folks had very little input except saying I could live in the house. All the college decisions were mine. My parents never saw an application. Never had any input about where I was going or what I was taking. Did helicopter parents exist then? :)</p>
<p>We weren't poor. We lived in a house. We vacationed in Calistoga every year. (It was $ 7-10 a night).</p>
<p>I agree that most people were happy at Berkeley and didn't think about private colleges. (From what I read and hear most people are still happy at Berkeley. Only the College Confidential kids aren't happy. :)</p>
<p>I don't like debt. I don't want my kids taking on any debt. (I do think $17.000 of debt will be manageable.</p>
<p>I'm not coveting your position. I'm just saying there are people making more than you or have more than you that can't swing it, but might have been able to swing it if the colleges had different policies including the idea of raising tuition faster than inflation and then using that money to cut the costs for other students.</p>
<p>These people are not too happy and it is understandable. </p>
<p>I'm not talking about billionaires like somebody mentioned.</p>
<p>There is a redistribution. I didn't make this up. The schools say there is a redistribution. Some people benefit. Others don't.</p>
<p>The process is always going to be unfair to somebody. I don't believe there are enough poor people in the "elite schools". </p>
<p>But I understand the arguments of those who are not poor and are getting squeezed. They are getting squeezed.</p>
<p>Here is a story. My grandmother and grandfather never made more than $90 a week. After they both died the estate was worth over 1 million. How did this happen? They were depression era people. They saved and invested everything. If somebody didn't want something they took it. They had Christmas ornaments for God's sake and they were Jewish. They liked garage sales. They didn't travel out of state until they were in their sixties. </p>
<p>They would have had a very large EFC. What do you think? Should it have been large?</p>
<p>"including the idea of raising tuition faster than inflation and then using that money to cut the costs for other students."</p>
<p>Doesn't happen, at least at the privates. They are raising tuition SLOWER than the rate of increase of assets and income of the full-payers, amd reducing the number of very low income (Pell Grant students, and definitely those in the middle and upper middle class categories ($40k-$92k), and (independent of the subsidy for the rich question), focusing both need-based and merit aid on the richest 20% of the population.</p>
<p>At the publics, they are taking taxpayer money and recruiting full-pay OOS students at the expense of poor community college transfers.</p>
<p>Mini, 1% of the people in this country own 50% of the stock market.</p>
<p>People in the top 5%, top 10%, would like to go to some elite schools too.</p>
<p>That's nice. </p>
<p>I wish them well. Lot of those prestige institutions are now making it easier for them to do so. And if not, they can enjoy breaking the piggybank.</p>
<p>My 16-year-old d., who calls her 1990 Honda Accord "Mercedes", would like a real one. That's nice too.</p>
<p>Is paying for a car equivalent to paying for a college education?</p>
<p>Cars are cheaper. They last longer. But difference between a Honda and a Mercedes is no different in kind than those between two equivalent educational vehicles. Both will get you where you want to go. One in better style, and people might turn around and look, and the interior will be better apponted.</p>
<p>Mercedes now has a great "lease-to-own" program. ;) (I don't suggest you drive up in one around here for a job interview - there aren't enough of them to have an established track record, and folks might think you a little strange.)</p>
<p>I agree with your post #173. </p>
<p>I was going elsewhere, but I like your post so much, I am going to stop. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
if the colleges had different policies including the idea of raising tuition faster than inflation and then using that money to cut the costs for other students.
[/quote]
Dstark, that's not how it works. The colleges do NOT take financial aid money out of the tuition fees of full pay student, no matter how much they pay. They get the money from their endowment, and private donations. In fact, my son's on-campus job for most of the time he was at his private school was call up alumni and ask for donations. (He liked the part where he got to call up a few famous people!) </p>
<p>Most colleges are using a percentage of their endowment roughly akin to what the financial aid system expects parents to pay from their personal "endowment" (i.e. assets) -- that is around 5-6%. The rate of return on investments is generally higher --sometimes much higher - than the amount expended each year to finance financial aid -- so as far as I know, the value of endowments of just about every college goes up every year.... not down.</p>
<p>Again, the money doesn't come from tuitions -- because full pay tuitions are NOT enough to pay the operating costs of the colleges, so there isn't money left over from the tuition revenues to use to subsidize financial aid. My daughter's college has a very small endowment so uses a higher percentage than most to fund need-based aid (leading some to question the viability of the college); it says that tuitions finance about 70% of the cost of an education there -- the other 30% is the portion of the endowment that benefits all comers. </p>
<p>Even when airlines discount some tickets, and not all - it isn't a matter of the full-pay customers "subsidizing" the discount flyers. It's a matter of filling up the plane, because it costs almost as much to fly a plane with empty seats as it does to fly a plan with every seat occupied. The elite colleges don't need to give away free slot to fill their classes -- but, like the airlines, they ARE looking out for their own interests. In the case of the private colleges, they want a certain balance in the type of students. I think they WANT kids like mine, who spent the summer before college working retail --as well as the kids who summered on the Riviera --- because otherwise they would have a student body made up entirely of privileged kids with very little real world experience -- and also, the somewhat stronger work ethic that often results from having held down a real job for a while. (I'm not trying to put down kids from families that are financially better off -- but I'm sure that when you were a student working full time to put yourself through college, you must have had a sense of being somewhat more mature and responsible in part because of your work experience).</p>
<p>I still vividly recall a contemporary whose daughter was the HS class val who was very angry that the finances didn't allow their D to go to any of the wonderful elite schools that accepted her but ended up with a full-ride at flagship U as the Regent Scholar instead. The D put a good face on it, but her parents were extremely upset, assuming that her great grades, SAT scores & getting varsity letters in 3 sports & being an all-around stellar student & person would somehow get her the merit + need aid her family wanted for her to be able to go to the many schools who wanted her to attend.
My S was told early on that we could afford sending him to our state flagship U but if he wanted more, he'd have to get GOOD merit aid or borrow the difference. He said the college counselor at the HS was always good at helping ID which schools would give good merit aid for kids with his credentials, so he couldn't figure out what the val was surprised & upset.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People in the top 5%, top 10%, would like to go to some elite schools too.
[/quote]
Then those people should allocate some of their savings toward college expenses. There is quite a big tax break in the rules governing 529 accounts -- which are now treated uniformly as parental assets, not student assets -- so it seems to me that if anything the financial aid system has now been adjusted to favor the upper middle class even more, at least if they have been using some of their stronger resources to save over the years.</p>
<p>I do know many middle-class families who HAVE saved --a family with half of the cost of college put away for each kid ($100K) would probably find the prospect of paying the other half from current income a lot less daunting. (In fact, I couldn't pay my EFC if I didn't have any savings! -- it's just that my savings all tallied up come to only 5 figures, not 6 -- but it is still nice to have money in the bank when the tuition check comes due).</p>
<p>Calmom, I don't quite see it the way you see it.
You didn't answer my question at the end of post #168.</p>
<p>HImom -- when I was in college, your son's college used to be known as the "University of spoiled children". I don't think anyone says that any more, largely because the university's financial aid practices made the school much more accessible to kids from middle class and working class families. </p>
<p>I don't get the sense that any of us who told our kids at the outset that they would have to "earn" the difference between public and private school prices in financial aid feel that our kids options were all that limited, even though choices were in part dictated by financial aid policies of their target schools. As a parent of a fellow NSM, I know that your son's college did a great job of letting us know through eye-catching mail what it was willing to offer. One of my biggest surprises this past year was the amount of <em>merit money</em> my test-challenged daughter was also able to attract. </p>
<p>I think that those who do not qualify for need based aid still have plenty of affordable options, if only they are willing to consider them.</p>
<p>dstark, re your question #168: if your grandparents had one million in liquid assets, then they should be able to pay the full cost of college. Any halfway intelligent financial advisor would be able to tell them how to invest the money in such a way that the entire cost of the kid's Harvard education could be paid from the <em>income</em> generated from their investments, without having to touch the principal. It doesn't matter if they got that money from a $90/week job or from winning the state lottery or inheriting it from their grandparents -- the bottom line is that they were sitting on assets that were more than enough to pay the cost of college.</p>
<p>The point of the need-based financial aid system is to help families who don't have much in the way of assets -- not to help those who have accumulated assets to shelter them so they can accumulate more. Nor is it there to pass judgment on the way the people got their money. .</p>
<p>I know that you see your grandparents as being very thrifty individuals who deserve to keep the gains of their hard work... but you also referred to their "estate". Apparently they were not able to take that money with them. What about the grandchild who inherits that money? Should it somehow be sheltered from being spent on college because the grandparents worked so hard to accumulate it? At what point does the accumulated wealth stop being a nest egg entitled to protection, and start being an asset which reasonably should be used to pay for expenses that are easily affordable to anyone with that kind of money in the bank?</p>
<p>In other words... send me that million and I will happily withdraw my daughter's financial aid app and pay full cost! One million less $200,000 is $800,000, which I would be very happy to keep at the end 4 years. ;)</p>