<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>$200K-- out of a matter of what is essentially ...taste. <<<</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>You hit the nail on the head. This is like having a "taste" for designer brands over generics -- it's often very superficial. </p>
<p>My "dream car" is a red MB convertible...... That doesn't mean that I'm not happy with the choice that I can afford. The difference is that I have never spent a lot of time thinking that I can actually get (or deserve) that red MB because I know I can't afford one. </p>
<p>Now, if hubby had let me think that buying my dream car was somehow doable, and let me think it was likely to happen. Then, he took me to the dealer to let me "test drive" one. He then watched as I looked over the options and put in an order for one. BUT, then a few months later, he pulled the rug out, I might pout a bit, too. But, I would get over it -- and your d will, too. (I wouldn't pay one cent more than the costs for Cornell).</p>
<p>Kwibbles, given what you say I don't think you've done anything wrong. My daughter has a lot more casual, less-frugal, attitude about money than my son - part of it is innate personality, not upbringing. If you've told the kid at the outset that financial aid & affordability is the primary issue -- the it's the kid's fault, not yours, if they don't get it. </p>
<p>Though articles like the ones in the NYT that suggest that parents are somehow derelict if we won't sacrifice everything for the designer-brand education don't help matters. </p>
<p>Anyway, I guess your daughter is about to learn an important lesson about consequence -- though truthfully, its not easy to get enough scholarship money to make a difference. But your daughter's slacking off in that area gives you a good idea of how important the college choice <em>really</em> is to her. Sure - she might fuss and moan -- but if she wanted something badly enough, she'd work for it. I don't mean to put your daughter down - I feel the same way about my kid, and in fact I often withhold support for awhile and then supplement later once I saw that my kid was really serious and working hard toward the goal. I mean, in the end I probably spoil my kids, but they have to take initiative and contribute something to the effort.</p>
<p>We decided to make our son responsible for his tuition/fees/books/spending money but not for the reasons implied in the NYT article. And we saved about $76k in a UGM account for his use in financing his education. And we have enough money saved to have been able to afford $50,000 without breaking a sweat.</p>
<p>We went this route because we wanted him to assume responsibility for his education and have him be invested in the process from day one. We wanted him to grapple with choices, options and compromises early on in his adult life. Though I know this raises some hackles here, we also did not want to give him a sense of entitlement because that will not be the case once he enters adulthood.</p>
<p>And he has made some wonderful choices/learned some powerful lessons which will serve him well when he graduates. Add to this, the fact that he will graduate from a wonderful college with about $50,000 in the bank and we realize that he will be off to a flying start in life.</p>
<p>I dont get it..... you said that you saved about $76K in a UGM account to finance son's education -- Yet, you say that you made your son responsible for his tuition, etc.... What was the UGM for and what is it's purpose? </p>
<p>You later say that he will graduate with $50k saved. Are we to assume that the $50K is being taken from the $76K UGM account? </p>
<p>Either way, he may be graduating with 50K in the bank -- but it is there because you put it there -- not because of anything that he "saved". </p>
<p>But...more to the point... congrats to your son for paying for his own education.</p>
<p>JL, to clarify some. You are correct, the $76k UGMA was saved by us and not by him but was a fund he could use to pay for college tuition. But he had choices-to go to one of our instate colleges and have some money in the UGMA after graduation, do his research and mine for merit scholarships to defray some of the tuition costs or go up the foodchain a bit and expect to use the entire UGMA on tuition with some student loans to cover the remainder.</p>
<p>He chose the merit aid route and is attending Rensselaer with three merit scholarships totalling $25,000. He spent endless hours researching merit aid possiblities starting junior year when he approached his GC about the Rensselaer Medal which we told him about as my wife is an RPI alum. As a result he will only have to spend about $30,000 of the UGMA funds and have about $50k remaining at graduation. And actually since he is in an off campus apartment and saving about $4500 in room and board, we are applying that savings toward his tuition bill which we felt was keeping our end of the bargain.</p>
<p>So he will graduate with a $50,000+ nest egg, a job that should pay in excess of $50,000/yr(avg 2005 salary offers in his major were $54,300) and no student loans as described in the NYT article.</p>
<p>Again the reason we took this route was not to be parsimonious, but to teach him life lessons which will serve him well as an adult. Too many people do not know how to handle money, make sound judgements, accept compromise, defer gratification, and understand that life entitles us to nothing until we work to achieve it. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong. I have NO problem with parents expecting their kids to some or all responsible for their college costs. I have known too many parents who scrimp (or take out huge loans) only to have their kids drop out (for various reasons). (Similar to the situation where "daddy" buys his little girl a new car and she promptly "totals" it by driving irresponsibly.)</p>
<p>I expect that my kids will get merit $$$ ( s who is a HS junior already qualifies for free tuition at state schools because of stats). They know that they have to get high stats to get that merit $$$. They know we don't have a lot available for their college - only about 10K for each kid, for each college year. </p>
<p>It was a choice, but we put them in Catholic schools for nearly all of their education and those dollars could have been put in a college fund -- but again, we made the choice. But, it may have been an investment since their stats will get them merit $$$ that equals or exceeds what we paid for in tuition all these years.</p>
<p>My son wants to go to a particular out of state college so he knows tha to get OOS tuition plus more $$$ his stats have to be TOP. So he is motivated to do "practice" ACT and SAT tests in order to get those high scores.</p>
<p>I agree that putting some "burden" on the kids helps to motivate them.</p>
<p>It's much more difficult for a student to put himself through college than it was a generation ago. I just don't think it's possible unless you attend a state university or get substantial financial aid. Our kids could be $200,000 in debt (if a financial institution will ever allow that) when they graduate from private college. How many years (of living at home!) will it take to repay that?</p>
<p>I think the retirement funds comment is dead-on. Since we are limited by how much we can put into them, many of us have our savings/investments for retirement completely exposed to be considered by colleges as assets. To me, this and home equity (without considering how much of a salary is needed to pay the mortgage in an expensive area) are the two major flaws in the EFC.</p>
<p>Still, my husband and I are putting our daughter through college with the exception of having her work to pay personal expenses. It warms my heart that she understands perfectly what we are doing; she has thanked me at least ten times for making the financial sacrifices so she can attend the college of her choice. She does not have the sense of entitlement that some kids have.</p>
<p>We can only hope that we don't suffer any financial catastrophes between the time she graduates and the time we retire so that we can continue saving.</p>
<p>I agree that it would nearly be impossible for a kid to 'put himself thru" a private college these days (or OOS public) without putting himself in dangerous debt. It's not like the old days where a part time job could be used to pay the current semester's tuition and books.</p>
<p>I agree with your points about retirement savings and personal savings. What is worse is how "exposed" a child's savings acct is. A kid's savings should be for all kinds of thiings: car, car repairs, down payment, future wedding/marriage, etc. The fact that FAFSA thinks it all should go for college (divided over the college years) is nuts. No wonder when parents find this out, they clear out the account the first year as much as they can.</p>
<p>" A kid's savings should be for all kinds of thiings: car, car repairs, down payment, future wedding/marriage, etc. The fact that FAFSA thinks it all should go for college (divided over the college years) is nuts."</p>
<p>Doesn't seem nuts to me. Why shouldn't a kid pay for their college if they have the $ to pay for it? Same as buying a car -- if one has the money to buy a car and wants a car, one gets a car. If not, one doesn't expect the car dealer to give you money to pay for a car.</p>
<p>I don't understand why so many see college as some kind of exception as if the world owes people a college education. A college education is a young person's investment in their own future. If they have the money to pay for it and want that education, they should make that investment. Later, if they want a car, wedding, etc., they can earn the $ to get those things, and certainly having a college degree should make earning that $ easier.</p>
<p>"It's much more difficult for a student to put himself through college than it was a generation ago. I just don't think it's possible unless you attend a state university or get substantial financial aid. ""</p>
<p>Since the founding of public universities, probably most college students probably have always attended in state public universities. It's not something to worry about if the only place that most students can go to is an in state public.</p>
<p>What does concern me, however, is that for people with the lowest income, it is very difficult to even attend an in-state public university. That's because federal loans haven't kept pace with college costs. </p>
<p>IMO every U.S. citizen who is capable of learning at a university level should be able to obtain a university education. The fact that many can't afford private universities is not a problem any more than it's a problem that many people can't afford to buy Corvette cars. I just would like to see every student being able to afford a college education who is capable of learning at the university level and is motivated to do so.</p>
<p>"What does concern me, however, is that for people with the lowest income, it is very difficult to even attend an in-state public university. That's because federal loans haven't kept pace with college costs."</p>
<p>And merit aid is becoming less and less available at public institutions because of the financial crunch most are experiencing. It may be cheaper for a seriously disadvantaged teenager to go to an elite private college rather than go to the state university. Isn't that ironic?</p>
<p>"Why shouldn't a kid pay for their college if they have the $ to pay for it? "</p>
<p>I agree with you here. If I had going to use my retirement funds to pay for my child's college, she certain can forgo certain luxuries in order to help out. I'm not going to put her education first if she's not.</p>
<p>This thread seems like a good place to jump in. Here is where we are at: We were very clear with our daughter that her dad & I would have up to 12,000 a year combined to contribute for college expenses. We also made it clear that whatever the balance was after scholarships, - she was responsible for 1/3. We also set a limit of 18,000 as the max out of pocket for tuition/rm/bd (parents 12,000 & D 6,000). This is based on our two salaries and savings not on EFC which figures we should come up with almost 3x this amount.</p>
<p>The x factor has been her scholarships. Neither my husband or I had the grades our D does. Thus, while I assumed one is rewarded with a 4.0 - I didn't quite realize the doors that opens. One such door is a state scholarship (6,0000 yr renewable) which is only good if used in state. The result is, that after scholarships are factored in, she is trying to choose between the 18,000 year out of state school and the 7,000 year in state school. The first is within our parameters - H, myself, D each pay 6000. The other looks really, really good as we each pay 2300. Both are LAC, one ranked nationally - the other great reputation in state. </p>
<p>She is having a tough time as it seems are many, many kids. I feel for our kids. I never ever remember having such weighty decisions about choices involving the money factor. These are because of the reasons listed by many on this forum. I finally, ( yeah right - finally for the 200th time!) sat her down and told her both are within our parameters - she has worked hard to make expensive schools affordable for us, and she should go where she wants. Her problem now - she gets that if she goes to the less expensive school there will be more money for all the study abroad programs every school encourages. Thus, even when I tell her money isn't a factor anymore - she is helping me realize - it is.</p>
<p>If a school runs its own study abroad program, it usually charges standard tuition for that semester(s) and allows all scholarships/aid to contribute toward the costs. Before your d makes a decision, she should check this out with those she's likely to attend.</p>
<p>" I never ever remember having such weighty decisions about choices involving the money factor. "</p>
<p>I'm wondering whether that's because perhaps in the past fewer people were applying to colleges, and that also includes fewer people applying and getting into pricey private colleges.</p>
<p>I know that when I was in h.s. in the 1960s, 88% of my public high school classmates went to college, and $ was a consideration for many. That was true even though my small town was filled with professionals.'</p>
<p>That's why many of the classmates went to in-state publics where they could use their NY State regents scholarships. I also had a good friend whose parents made her transfer from an out of state private after one year because of the high costs.</p>
<p>Perhaps in the past, people didn't talk that much about costs or perhaps students were less willing to go far from home. When I went to an out of state college that was a 2 1/2 hour drive from home, I felt like I had gone far because most of my friends were remaining in state. Now, however, being 2.5 hours from home seems like going to college close to home.</p>
<p>Back in the old days, it was rare for students to go 3,000 miles away to college. Now, it seems that many people do, and least many on CC do.</p>
<p>Omni, I commend you and your daughter for the arrangements you agreed to and are sticking to. This is probably the biggest decision of her young life and she is learning valuable lessons because of it. I agree with the one poster about study abroad. She should check with both colleges because at many there is little or no additional expense other that the travel.</p>
<p>Most things in life are not free and many decisions involve some sort of compromise. Your daughter is learning this early on, something which will serve her well in years to come. It is these type of lessons which are often more important than anything we learn in the classroom.</p>
<p>My quote: " A kid's savings should be for all kinds of thiings: car, car repairs, down payment, future wedding/marriage, etc. The fact that FAFSA thinks it all should go for college (divided over the college years) is nuts."</p>
<p>Northstar replies: Doesn't seem nuts to me. Why shouldn't a kid pay for their college if they have the $ to pay for it? Same as buying a car -- if one has the money to buy a car and wants a car, one gets a car. If not, one doesn't expect the car dealer to give you money to pay for a car.</p>
<p>I think you misunderstood me. I am not saying that none of a kids savings should be dedicated for college. Some should be dedicated to college (maybe half or so). I am just saying that it is reasonable to allow/expect that money to be saved for other things, too. If a student doesn't live in an area with great public transportation, then he will likely need a car. </p>
<p>The system as it stands just encourages kids to keep their money/savings in their parents' names.</p>
<p>NSM, I agree that college is far less affordable that when we grew up. However students with easy access to a local community college can get two years of college complete at little cost. Durig that time many of these students are able to work part time and save a few dollars for completing their degrees.</p>
<p>And even then, many students who have to pay their own way can enroll part time and work enough hours to afford college related expenses. Yes it may take 6 years instead of 4 but they are real heros in my opinion.</p>
<p>I think we should be very thankful that we have such a vast public college system which allows virtually every student a chance to get a college degree regardless of circumstances. It may not be the conventional 4 years and out but thousands of dedicated students can and do accomplish it year after year.</p>
<p>Our children are responsible for 1/2 tuition; we will pay Frosh + Senior (you can imagine why) year. We will pay R&B; they will pay for books, supplies, clothing, spending $$ etc. Outside merit scholarships will be credited to their Soph/Jr tuition. Best we could do.... but we have taken one vacation in 10 yrs, are not clothes horses, don't eat out a lot & the kids have worked every summer! Luckily, we like homemade mac&cheese & reading & time w/ friends... There have been times when it has been difficult to explain how kids who get full rides (financially) have also travelled the world/country several times, have their own car & generally seem to be able to afford much more than we can afford. These same kids are currently complaining that they have to pay anything for their college education. It grates a little. My DH's folks promised to pay for our kids education but have not been able to do so. (Luckily, I dont count my chicks b4 they hatch! & so saved) That's life! My children have turned out less needy, more resilient & self-confident as a result. They have been blessed & know it! I see many many kids like mine as this process winds down & I'm really proud of all of them!!!!!! I don't really count on any newspaper for perspective anymore; from where we sit, most parents are doing the best they can & then some!</p>
<p>Finances and merit aid were a consideration for us. Despite merit monies at all the schools my senior son looked at I didn't think it would be wise to graduate with > 150,000 debt from his top choice private. </p>
<p>It just didn't seem very smart. He seemed to appreciate things more clearly when I asked him to put it to paper; costs, fit, pros and cons of attending each school.</p>