<p>I would have no problem with a COLA for current income-I understand your point and may have made the same choice you did but I think overall it would be a pretty fair thing to do.</p>
<p>@Momzie lists some other choices as well. I think if we try to get a fair system for everyone in the end nothing will ever get fixed-I believe a simple COLA for current income is a good place to start. It isn’t fair in every case but I think overall it would be fairer.</p>
<p>We all make multiple lifestyle choices-and if we go down that road we are going to get the usual CC back and forth and this thread is interesting to me at least because so far it’s relatively free of that.</p>
<p>We seem to have a problem as a society that can’t be addressed by trying to make it fair under every possible circumstance-that’s impossible.</p>
<p>@notjoe I really have enjoyed reading your points on this any thoughts?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure that I agree (the feds already exclude home equity which is generally high in high cost areas), but it doesn’t matter since your idea of a COLA is uneconomic since; if implemented, it would bust financial aid budgets.</p>
<p>In reality, there exist only a handful of colleges that could afford such a policy, and all of them are extremely selective. In any event, such colleges are already very generous --up to $180k income and cap home equity. </p>
<p>The next group of colleges – approximately 25 – that are need-blind and meet full need, would have to prune $$ elsewhere to raise need-based aid to those in the high cost areas.</p>
<p>After that, there is a handful or two of colleges that are need aware but meet full need. Obviously, they are need-aware for a reason – can’t afford to be need-blind.</p>
<p>And at the last group of colleges – the vast majority that do not meet full need – a COLA won’t much matter since they don’t meet full need in the first place.</p>
<p>Another reason why more (rich) kids are taking out loans is that more parents are saying I won’t pay!</p>
<p>Our whole financial aid system is based on the premise that it is the parent’s obligation to pay college tuition for their children. But you know what? Lots of parents can’t and lots of parents WON’T! And certainly it is out of the control of their children.</p>
<p>So we have this system where all these financial aid calculators are calculating and all these forms and applications are being filed, but yet, a parent is under absolutely no obligation to pay what their EFC is or even close if they don’t want to. </p>
<p>And the larger the EFC is, the more objectionable it is to some parents. Especially if they want to maintain their lifestyle and can’t if they have to outlay an enormous amount of money for college.</p>
<p>Now I’m not saying that students with poorer parents are luckier. But it is true that a student with no (or minimal) financial support from their parents and no financial aid from a school is not in a good spot.</p>
<p>And many of those kids are taking out the max in loans to try to get a degree without the support their parents were “expected” to give.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No college I’ve ever heard of gives home school families financial aid just because they home school. They give money to home schoolers for the same reasons they give it to other families: either the students have high stats and qualified for merit aid and/or the families have incomes under a certain threshold. I know quite a few one income home school families (and the working parent isn’t always the dad), but very few of what I would consider low income. Most of the home schoolers I know won’t qualify for need based aid. Maybe you can get financial aid for becoming a missionary in Africa, that I don’t know, but people shouldn’t assume that colleges will offer them financial aid if they quit their jobs to home school because they’re going to be in for a rude surprise.</p>
<p>I’ve read many times on CC that it’s a luxury to go to a sleep away college and that most kids end up commuting. I think both of those things are true. Just because a family is “low” income doesn’t mean anyone is paying their way to school. There aren’t a whole lot of colleges that are meeting full need for low income students and if you don’t have stellar stats, you’re not getting in, so you’re not in any better position than a middle income kid who doesn’t have stellar stats. You’re probably worse, because middle income families have a better chance of affording the costs of commuting.</p>
<p>@Dharmawheel Maybe that’s not the case with NYC, but what about areas such as the Bay Area? Where I live, the median home price is 700k.</p>
<p>Parents buy incredibly expensive houses that they can’t afford because it’s in the area of a “good” school–they want their kids to do well in life and get into good colleges; but they don’t always understand the cost of such a college education.</p>
<p>My idea would be to take current earnings and apply a factor to make them comparable across the country and use that to make awards-I never thought of increasing the total awarded just redistributing it.</p>
<p>@bluebayou thanks though it has me thinking now that maybe it wouldn’t even have much impact-I need to study this more but I am learning. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then the colleges end up with more students from each coast, and fewer from "fly-over country, since the latter fin aid awards would decrease by the amount that the former’s increase.</p>
<p>What I think is really sad is the poor and middle class are subsidizing the rich to go to college. Statistics plainly show that wealthier families have higher performing students. These are the kids who get merit rides to expensive schools. And who pays for them? The poor schlubs who are trying to survive, but whose kids are not high performing, thus requiring full pay. The poor pay for the rich. Quite a system we have. I have said this before and will again. I refuse to pay full pay either for private college or for oos simply because my d does not qualify for merit aid. I work very hard for my money and refuse to transfer it to administrators at colleges or to subsidize the rich whose kids attend for free or at huge discounts.</p>
<p>@bluebayou I hadn’t thought of that…</p>
<p>@piroud321 that is very understandable. I am not in favor of the poor and middle class subsidizing higher income levels. What people are having problems with are they feel they are middle class and even though the schools tell them they are high income. I agree there is no easy answer here and would like to see reforms so every student could get an excellent public school education-but that opens another argument doesn’t it?</p>
<p>@piroud321 True merit aid is not a factor at most schools. Most schools require that a student have financial need. Very few schools percentage wide offer large sums of money to people without need. There are some, but those schools are trying to attract these wealthier and accomplished students to achieve a goal–generally to make the school go up in rankings.</p>
<p>I would certainly not view the system overall as the poor and middle class supporting the wealthy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but that is a lifestyle choice. No one is forcing those “schlubs” to pay sticker. There are plenty of other colleges which would offer a discount to the ‘schlub’. So, if a schlub family voluntarily agrees to pay sticker, why should we care? Why this any different than somebody paying for a Mercedes when a Kia will do? (particularly when the former is purchased with a large loan?)</p>
<p>The difference is that I am not payingfor a Mercedes for me, but for somebody else, and I am being told I have no choice but to do so if I want to also buy a car for myself. It’s not a choice to go or not go to college if somebody wants to have a reasonable chance of having at least a middle class lifestyle. That’s like saying medical care is a choice</p>
<p>you are missing the point – full pay is not the only choice:</p>
<p>There are plenty of other colleges which would offer a discount to the ‘schlub’.</p>
<p>Ie, choose the substandard college or subsidize the rich? If I want to go to a top school, I have to pay for your Mercedes to be entitled to buy my own.</p>
<p>actually, no, you just buy your own Mercedes if you make the lifestyle choice to attend a top school with average grades. But its a real stretch – insulting, actually – to say that the only other alternative is a “substandard” school. If a kid has the competitive stats for a top school, he/she would easily earn merit money at a school not too far down the food chain. It doesn’t have to be the local judo.</p>
<p>For example, someone with the test scores to be accepted into a Top 15 school, would readily earn merit money from USC, #25.</p>
<p>You are missing my point. Many colleges force the relatively.poor to subsidize the relatively Rich across the spectrum of schools, best I can tell. The rich can afford to send their kids to better k-12 schools, pay for tutions. Test preparation, etc, and then they get to force the poor to subsidize their kids based on “merit aid” at many given schools. It’s not a lifestyle choice. Not even sure where that argument comes from.</p>
<p>@piroud321 If merit aid bothers you so much, then apply to schools that don’t give merit aid. There are plenty of them. Actually most of them. And don’t forget that all the schools that give merit aid also give financial aid to those with need. Can you give one example of a school that gives merit aid to everyone but does not give financial aid to those with need?</p>