<p>I thought this thread was about whether taking out a Perkins loan was a good idea.</p>
<p>I believe it was when I last looked at it several posts ago.</p>
<p>Well some of us get sidetracked.
Thats what the GPS is for!</p>
<p>Well if you go all the way back it was about perkin and stafford loans and the role they play in a school costing 50K+.</p>
<p>A lot of schools offer different levels of loans in the package depending on family income. Similar to Dungareedoll’s complaint, this seems unfair to the students of higher-income families. Not only is the family expected to pay out more in the family contribution, the student is expected to pay more via loans. When the student graduates, he or she will have all the same opportunities and challenges as the lower-income student in the same program, but thousands of dollars more debt to pay off. </p>
<p>I have raised this on here before. The one thing that I hadn’t considered was the lower-income students needing to take loans additional loans beyond the ones in their package to cover things a middle-class family might cover for their student (such as transportation to school, a gift of a laptop, cell phone plans, health insurance, twin XL sheet set, winter coats and boots, or whatever a middle-class family might cover without thinking twice that lower-income kids would need to take additional loans for). I’m not saying that every middle class family covers every expense I’ve listed, of course, those are just some examples of things that many middle class families do often pay for. So ultimately the lower-income kid may end up with the same loans even though their package contained smaller loans to start with.</p>
<p>Subsidized loans are a form government assistance. Government assistance levels are typically tied to family income. Do you feel that other forms of government assistance, such as food stamps, should be given equally to children, regardless of their parents’ income? All children have to eat, and wealthier kids are accustomed to eating better and more expensive food so, even though their parents make a lot more money, should they get help to pay for those expensive tastes? They’re just living within their means.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about subsidized loans. I’m talking about schools with no-loan or limited-loan policies that are tied to parental income. Although there are some justifications that make sense, it’s hard to to say why one young adult, whose means are going to be just the same as another’s when they graduate from the same program at the same school, should be saddled with more loans starting out. The parents are already being asked to pay a much higher family contribution based on their income. Why should the kids also be asked to pay back more after graduation based on parental income when the parents aren’t going to be the ones paying back the loans?</p>
<p>Children don’t pay for their own food – their parents do. Thus it makes sense to tie food stamps to family income. But students DO pay off their own student loans. And a student from a middle class family starts out with the same salary as a similar kid from a poorer family, yet is asked to pay more in loan payments. So that’s not really an apt comparison.</p>
<p>it’s hard to to say why one young adult, whose means are going to be just the same as another’s when they graduate from the same program at the same school</p>
<p>Their means are not the same.
A student whose parents have degrees, who had enough money to put away for college( even if they didn’t), who in many circumstances have even used their kid in college as a way to make a little money by buying nearby housing for their kid to live in while they collect rent from his roommates, who has been taught the value of connecting with others for internships & networking - those kids are not on an equal footing when they graduate college anymore than they were when they entered high school.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about kids from wealthy families who can afford to buy a house in the college town. I’m talking about top schools that meet full need with 0 loans for kids from families with incomes of $60K and $7500/year in loans for kids from families with incomes of $120K. A family with an $120K income who is paying ~30K EFC does not have the means to buy a home in the college town, nor to cover the kid’s 3K student contribution if the student chose not to work over the summer. </p>
<p>Yes, the 120K family may have given their kid more advantages throughout high school, but once both kids are attending a top school, much is equalized. Yes, there may still be differences in what the families pay for for their kids, but probably not to the tune of $7500/year. </p>
<p>We’re in that situation and we pay only a few hundred dollars per year of expenses for our son (bus tickets to travel home, primarily, because we care more than he does). He found his own (paid) internships through the school’s career center just as any other student in his program can (and most of them do) without any networking from us. </p>
<p>Our son went in with his eyes open about the debt, and he did have cheaper options which he chose not to take advantage of. We’re very grateful for the opportunity he has to attend the school of his choice with a manageable EFC and manageable debt. He’s saving as much as he can from his summer internships so he can take on less debt in his upper years. Given his successes so far finding paid internships, I don’t foresee him having a great deal of trouble paying off his debt. So mostly we just worry about ourselves don’t indulge in the pity party of whining about other kids having less debt. I really do feel that the large debt inequity does my son a disservice compared to many other lower income kids, but I’ll go back to being grateful for what we have and not whining about the loans now. :)</p>
<p>Thank you Mathmomvt. </p>
<p>Emerald: "who has been taught the value of connecting with others for internships & networking "</p>
<p>In regard to that statement thats not necessarily true either. Like everything in life the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Just because a kid comes from an upper middle class or even upper class family doesn’t mean they have been taught the value of networking. And just because your poor doesn’t mean you don’t know how to accomplish that. Sometimes, I think its a fair statement that kids like OKstategirl on this thread probably understand the value of networking better than most kids her age. Sometimes raised in a low income family makes you “hungry” to succeed. Beleive it or not that low income situtation can make someone better prepared to be successful. Just like the kid who was born with a silver spoon, may not be quite so eager. The upper class kid may think that life is just a bowl of cherries. They don’t know how to work for their success and they aren’t hungry for it. So for the true upper class kid, he better hope that mom and dad can continue to carry him for life because the second his safety net is removed, he will fall hard. For the upper middle class kid, who mistakenly thinks there’s a safety net, well he won’t make it very far at all.</p>
<p>I’m the product of a low income family. It made me work really hard. I saw what others had and I wanted it too. I wasn’t entitled. I didn’t resent others for having it. On the contrary, it made me know that there is better out there. I worked 80-90 hours a week every summer to pay for school. I was thrilled to know that I could do it on my own. Plus I worked during the school year. My family had no connections. I had no idea what the word - networking- meant but I learned how to do it. My parents are fantastic but all they gave me was a desire to do better. I never hated the rich kids, just aspired to be more like them. Never did I think that I should get more than them because I was poor. There parents worked hard for what they had. I thought we were all equal. They just wore nicer clothes or drove nice cars, but that was their parents money. When we were in college together we were all the same. We all had to conserve money. (Yes, even the rich parents told their kids to becareful with their spending) We all had to get jobs and live on our own, after graduation. I would have thought it was terrible to think that my best friend was paying more for the same loan that I took out. It wouldn’t have made sense. (Still doesn’t). So no, Okstategirl I would not have felt that my rich friends ‘deserved’ to pay more because of their parents finances.</p>
<p>Because the reality is, the line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. There will always be those who end up on the wrong side of that line by the smallest amount. It’s not ideal, but life is messy.</p>
<p>First of all. there are not many colleges that meet full need and offer no loan policy for kids from families with incomes of $60K and below. Those kids who qualify fo rno loan may come to such colleges through QuesBridge or other similar programs. They excel despite of financial disadvantages. Don’t they deserve a reward like “no loan” for their efforts and achievements just as merit scholarships are given to students of excellence in academics/sports/leadership/service disregarding financial status?</p>
<p>“Yes, the 120K family may have given their kid more advantages throughout high school, but once both kids are attending a top school, much is equalized.” ------IMO, maybe much is equalized but not all is equalized. </p>
<p>It is true that most of the students from families of higher incomes need to pay back their loans by themselves but they probably do not need to help their parents and younger siblings after graduation while those no-loan students probably have to.</p>
<p>My parents could pay for my education and they even told me not to apply for merit scholarships for we did not need it and it would be better to let someone in need to get it. (I did get some small amount of scholarship that was given automatically.)</p>
<p>If we think it is reasonable to have tax inequality, why can’t we accept the student “debt inequality”? Why not focus on the real issues of college finance and social equality rather than the personal comparison to uncommon cases?</p>
<p>Nice post SerenitySophie. Dungareedoll keeps mentioning that 180K families live according to their means - so they have big bills to go along with their high income. But this is a choice! Certainly if they really wanted to get their children through college without big loans they have the <em>choice</em> to downsize their lifestyle. We have a 6 figure income - and a mortgage of less than 600 dollars for exactly this reason. In fact we made a lifechanging move to a lower cost of living area in order to help afford college costs. People making 50K do not have such flexibility…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are we really hearing a “isn’t it a blessing to be poor” argument? Well, most of the time it is not. By that logic, paying more back, and thus having less, will be a benefit to the upper income kid too. They’ll be hungrier and work harder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did too. We’re living in a house half the size of the old one precisely to afford our part of the college costs.</p>
<p>It’s about priorities. My car is 15 years old. My clothes mostly come from Goodwill. But my son is in college and the money to keep him there is, thank goodness, available for that.</p>
<p>Cartera: I’m not saying for one second that being poor is a blessing but their are somethings that people can take away from it and make it a positive. Having been there, I can speak from experience.</p>
<p>Highbury: Did you read the article I posted in the #50 posting. It explains how a salary of 180K isn’t worth that much, in areas like NY. So thats what I mean when I say we all live within our means. So you, along with everyone else can sit there pointing fingers at people that you believe to be living 'high on the hill" and all I’m saying is that its not quite so. The numbers are a bit of a fallacy. Sounds like a lot, but depending on where you live it may not be the case. People in NY/Long Island have to make those kinds of salaries just to get by. They aren’t driving mercedes or porsches. They are driving 10 year old cars, shopping a Kmart, and taking 'stay-cations".</p>
<p>cartera: Lastly with regard to " Do you feel that other forms of government assistance, such as food stamps, should be given equally to children, regardless of their parents’ income?" This is a silly analogy. Mainly because they are childrend. College students are adults and when they graduate should no longer be dependent on their parents. Since a child cannot take care of themselves, of course govt. asst. such as food stamps, should be provided. But loans for young adults who will graduate with equally good degrees, from equally fantastic schools should be on a level playing field. They take he loans without a parent’s signature. Why? Because the govt is going after them if they default, not the parent. So why should the parent’s income have anything to do with the equation.</p>
<p>Dungareedoll - I lived on Long Island for many years, so I’m quite aware of the situation. And yes in a sense I am pointing fingers. You posted earlier that there are people whose children go to your school that are making 50K and doing just fine. If you feel that they are doing just fine then why don’t you live on 50K and put the rest toward education? Your son would have no loans.</p>
<p>Oh silly Highbury.;)</p>
<p>Don’t you remember that just as the amount of stuff that you can’t be parted with expands depending on the size of your handbag, so does the size of your house expand to meet your ego.
We want to live at the limits of our capabilities. If we want peers that recognize the names we are dropping, we have to run with the big dogs, and that costs money.</p>
<p>Our son has two loans remaining in his FA package (3,500 Stafford and 2,000 Perkins) which he hasn’t taken yet. We know he will need at least one to get through to the next school year (and possibly both). If he doesn’t take them now, they will be forfeited; so, we were thinking about taking both and putting them in a separate account so the money is there if and when he needs it. And if he doesn’t end up needing them, then the monies would be there later to pay back. Any thoughts or pros and cons with our idea?</p>