<p>Got my son's FA pkg from his top choice school. We got </p>
<p>$8240 Grant
$1600 Perkins loan
$3500 sub Stafford loan
$2000 unsub Stafford loan
and then some huge amount in PLUS loans that we won't be taking out.</p>
<p>Are Perkins loans in the student's name or the parent's names? They are on top of the Stafford loans? If they are in the student's name, then it is possible to end up with more than the $27k from Stafford loans in the student's name by the time they graduate?</p>
<p>Perkins are in the student’s name, and, yes, it is very possible for a student to graduate with more than $27K in their names. I’ve seen Perkins loans up to $5K. Add the Stafford maximums, and then some kids get even more unsubsidized Staffords if a parent is turned down by PLUS, and throw in the interest in the unsubsidized loans and you are way up there, baby. That doesn’t include some loans that schools will give the students in their own names. </p>
<p>The good thing about the Perkins is that they are subsidized so that the interest does not start accruing until after graduation. And now with word that the Stafford subsidized rates may be going up higher, the Perkins could end up a better deal than the Stafford subsidized ones.</p>
<p>Thanks. I had it in my head that the most a student could get in their own name was the $27k Stafford loans and that the only way these kids end up with $100k in loans is because they have co-signers. but it is possible for kids to get quite a bit (maybe not $100k) of debt in their own names.</p>
<p>Oh, yes, they can. If a college gives a kid the loan and the loans accrue interest along with those unsub Staffords, and who knows how much a school will give out privately, you can hit $100K without cosigners. I can get up $70K easly without including the interest accruing on those unsubsidized Staffords, that are close to 7% in interest cranking the moment they are taken. Another $7K or so in school loans and you are there at the $100K mark. It happens.</p>
<p>Well, it won’t be happening in this house. Thanks!</p>
<p>We also got Perkins and Stafford. S declined the unsub-Stafford and took the sub Stafford and sub-Perkins.</p>
<p>It’s good news for you that you got some Perkins too :)</p>
<p>But you can see how it can happen? $5500, $6500,$6500, $7500 in Stafford’s over the 4 years, with portions of them unsubsidized racking up interest the instant they are taken at about 7%. Throw in $5K (and I don’t even know if that is the max Perkins; that’s just the biggest I’ve seen) each year, and then say the parent does not qualify for PLUS each year, and that gives the kid an additional $4K in Staffords unsubsidized, by the way so the meter is ticking ther, and that amount increases each year for upper classmen Then throw in some private in college loans, and voila.</p>
<p>And consider yourself very lucky, because some students only get unsub loans, which is unfair. I’m not sure why one student is valued any differently than another.</p>
<p>Perkins loans are $5500 max per year for undergrads and $8000 max per year for grad students with a combined max (grad +undergrad) of $60,000. Perkins loans can be forgiven for teachers in low SES areas, some STEM teachers, and for Peace Corps volunteers with a percentage of Perkins loans forgiven/cancelled for each year of working. It works out to 50% Perkins loan forgiveness after the first three years of work.</p>
<p>Dungareesdoll, subsidized loans are awarded to students with have high need- in other words a low EFC.</p>
<p>Dungaredoll, you have to have need demonstrated by COA minus FAFSA EFC minus any scholarships and aid in order to get your loans subsidized. So you are very lucky to have a family with enough of a a financial cushion that you don’t qualify for a subsidized loan. A subsidized loan is used to meet financial need. When you get only unsubsidized loans, you are using them to meet your family EFC, a huge difference.</p>
<p>It is good news when a family with need can use all of the Staffords unsubsidized towards EFC instead of getting them scarfed up for need, because it then leaves no leeway to meet That EFC. The same with work study. Those awards take away from the ability of the student to work those hours to meet EFC which all non need students have. The students with need have to work, not towards EFC but towards the need package.</p>
<p>Perkins loans are very desirable, not only are they subsidized and low interest, but they may be partially be forgiven after graduation if the student commits to community service.</p>
<p>I disagree. A student loan is a student loan. My student shouldn’t be penalized for my financial cushion, as you call it. My son will come out of college with a greater debt than another student just because I, supposedly, have more money. Not fair!!! Thats his debt. I already have to pay the rest of the bill. So why should he now have greater debt, than another student studying the same major, at the same school, with the same prospects. That is whats happening. Please don’t give me this line of B.S. that I’m lucky. Luck had nothing to do with it. I’m not even complaining about what I have to dish out. The finaid offices make it clear was is the parent obligation and what is the students obligation, I can’t see why he should pay more than anyone else. He’s a kid just like the rest of them. </p>
<p>As a matter of fact, in my spare time I work with some families and help them with the college process. I basically act as a college counselor. I don’t charge a penny. I do it because I want to see kids succeed. However, it ****es me off, when they get so much finaid that their parents decide that they shouldn’t work during the summer, because they worked so hard in highschool. Really? I just want to scream. My kids have had to have summer jobs since they were 14, so they could save and help themselves for college. I have massive loans,(yes, because I’m lucky) to pay for college. Again, I don’t care about my debt, but it bothers me to think that my kid, who worked 80 hours a week last summer, yes-three jobs, has to pay double the interest rate and it accrues immediately. Nope not fair. So I think you may be very surprised at how many kids aren’t working, or atleast not working as hard as you may think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t think it’s because you “supposedly” have more money. It’s because you do have more money.</p>
<p>And, yes, it’s obviously beneficial to be able to get a subsidized loan in place of an unsubsidized loan. But when the kid has to get both, it’s just more debt - plain and simple. Debt they have to assume because they don’t have any other way to pay for college.</p>
<p>As for the kid who gets the Perkins and uses that as a reason to skip getting a summer job . . . would you really prefer that your kid took an additional loan instead of working a summer job? I think not.</p>
<p>With more money comes greater expenses. We all live within our means. Then again there are lots of people who live over there head, blow there money, and now ‘we’ the taxpayers have to inadvertantly pay for their stupidity.</p>
<p>“As for the kid who gets the Perkins and uses that as a reason to skip getting a summer job . . . would you really prefer that your kid took an additional loan instead of working a summer job?” </p>
<p>Maybe what people don’t understand is that my kid has to take the same loan amounts, just unsub’d, so he can’t afford to take a summer off because his bills are ultimately more expensive.</p>
<p>When you sit in my shoes then you can say that “you’re lucky and how grateful you are to pay full tuition, because again you’re so lucky to be making so much money” but until than give me a break.
So when the lucky kid gets to take out $5500 in loans his freshman year (which will accrue to $7155 by graduation), then $6500 in his sophomore year (which accrues to $7918), then $6500 in his junior year (which accrues to 7414) and then $7000 in his senior year (which accrues to 7476), I will remember how lucky he is because his loans are now at $30000, while the other kid’s are just $25500. Yup, thats lucky, alright.</p>
<p>dungareedoll - If you’re talking about the inequity between subsidized and unsubsidized loans, I agree, and perhaps that’s something that should be changed. (But I won’t be holding my breath!) But we started out here talking about a student taking out a subsidized Stafford, an unsubsidized Stafford, and a Perkins loan. That’s potentially $11k for freshman year alone! Over four years, that adds up to significantly more debt that your kids are going to have to assume, even with the accrued interest from their unsubsidized loans.</p>
<p>So, yeah, if a kid is really poor, he or she may enjoy the “benefit” of being able to borrow an additional $22k. That’s a benefit I’d just as soon my kid did without.</p>
<p>Unless college were free to everyone, there is no fair system. THe question has often come up as to why ANYONE should have to pay based based on parental financial situations. A kid whose parents have mega bucks can’t get financial if the parent refuses to part with the money that way, and that happens.</p>
<p>The way the federal system works is those from families around and under poverty level get amounts of grants from PELL. Those who have need but miss out on PELL can get subsidized Stafford loans. Everyone can get the unsubsidized Staffords. The pretty much covers the spectrum for those wanting to go to a local state school. Now if you are talking sleep away college or private schools,that’s a whole other story. In my not so humble opinion, I don’t think this federal money should be even going to the private schools who just integrate their own need formulas to suck it right up and make it look like they are giving it to the students and jack up their prices accordingly. But no one is asking me how it should work.</p>
<p>No one would want to pay for college if the system were such that those who did not want to pay can simply say so. That happened with my generations. Lots of independent kids, some from well to do families that knew the ways to the get the most out of the system. There is only so much money to hand out, so the aid goes to the poorest families and more onus go onto the parents with the exception of the free market coming into play where the most desirable students get scholarships if they have something a schools wants. Like high stats, like diversity, like athletic prowess. </p>
<p>There is a lot that needs to be reformed in the system, and I feel it needs to start with the local state options. In most of the world, all of the world, the public schools are the best in the country, and to have a high priced private group of schools holding that position here makes no sense to me. And subsidized by our dollars. Harvard has about as much need for the PELL and other federal monies as the ocean needs more water, and to some degree the other most heavily endowed schools. The California system is as good as it gets on the model I like, but when NY tried to copy it, it did not get the three R’s of elitism, Recognition, Ratings and Reputation.</p>
<p>The more money a family has, usually the more options the student has,not to mention the advantages there getting to the point of college admissions. That there are niches where it is less fair, is true, but overall, I can’t see how to make it fairer with the funds we now have. It’ll take a heck of a lot more money to expand things to higher income families or make it so that students, not their parents are on the hook. Very, very few 18 year olds have the money to afford much of anything.</p>
<p>dodgersmom I would rather that my kid wouldn’t have to take those loans either. People make it sound like its an option. Its not. Thats the part that is frustrating. People assume that individuals who don’t receive finaid are “loaded”. Thats not the case for everyone. Many of us are just upper middle class. By the time I’m done paying for everything, because I’m so damn lucky, I’m worse off than the person who is just middle class and getting some finaid. Like i said, my kids are taking those loans and working 80 hours a week during the summer. No my kid couldn’t take the unpaid internship last summer, that would really help to bolster his resume, because we couldn’t afford to miss out on a summer of income.</p>
<p>Cptofthehouse: I really am not complaining (ok maybe a bit) about what I have to pay. Thats my choice. I just can’t see why any kid, rich, poor or middle class, pay different loan rates, when its 'their" loans. I’m not complaining about my loans or loan rates or the fact that I could potentially come out with thousands of dollars of debt. Thats for me to worry about. But the students should all be equal. With the exception of perhaps 1% of the population, I don’t know of that many students who will graduate and their parents will pay for their apartments and subsize their living expenses. So why should one have to pay more for the ‘same’ student loan just because their parents make more money? Plain and simple. Its not fair to the kid</p>
<p>BTW I agree that its not a perfect system. I agree it will not be fixed anytime soon. There will always be inequities. The rich will pay more and the poor less. Whatever. I don’t care, I just can’t see why 18 year old students, who haven’t gone out into the world, aren’t financially successful, are not allowed to start off on a level playing field.</p>
<p>I thought I was just asking a simple question about Perkins loans. ;)</p>