<p>Why</a> Public Universities Are Now a Bad Bargain for the Middle Class - DailyFinance</p>
<p>Just ran across this thread... eye opening for those who aren't aware!</p>
<p>“The rub, of course, is that most kids cannot get into the elite private schools,” Vedder said.</p>
<p>Minor detail.</p>
<p>Nor is it credible that private college tuitions rose only 22% from 1997 to 2007. Based on this, <a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_FB2009_10_Sec03_Tuition.pdf[/url]”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_FB2009_10_Sec03_Tuition.pdf</a>, Harvard’s tuition went up about 53% during that period. The CPI-U increased 29% and the median family income (ages 45-54) increased 32% during that period.</p>
<p>Very true about getting accepted.</p>
<p>However, I think most of the time the price of public univ is viewed from the perspective of the entire COA (on campus housing). In truth, most kids who attend a public univ (especially non flagships) are commuting to school…so the cost is much, much less. Often the cost is less than their EFC. </p>
<p>Look at the Calif CSUs…the tuition fees are about $7k. If the child commutes, then his cost could be lower than his middle class family’s EFC…which could be $15k - 25k per year.</p>
<p>I would agree that many state’s flagship univs are out of reach for the middle class if they can’t commute. Their EFCs are too high for gov’t grants, yet the school doesn’t provide much/any institutional need based grants.</p>
<p>At Pitt’s main campus, in-state tuition and mandatory fees went up by 109% from the 1997-98 to 2007-08 school year. Even so, this was only 41% of Harvard’s number in the 2007-08 school year. Source: [University</a> of Pittsburgh - Management Information & Analysis](<a href=“http://www.ir.pitt.edu/tuition/historical/tuithmpg.php]University”>Tuition Rates and Fees | Office of Institutional Research)</p>
<p>States have been dis-investing in public education for a while, but for most students, their state colleges are still the best bargain. It seems like the article has many correct details, but the headline is way off.</p>
<p>Granted, getting into the top private’s is the hard part but I was one of the clueless parents that did not realize how generous these schools were for families in my income bracket. The huge endowments and “no loan” financial aid packages make it “very” worthwhile for a student with high stats to apply. My son was one of the fortunate few to be accepted to a top private and should finish UG without debt. This is very important as he has aspirations for medical school. His sister is at an instate public and will graduate with around 30K in loans.</p>
<p>Kdog…yes, It’s a good deal for a lowish income student who has top stats and is lucky enough to get accepted to a no-loan school…especially one that also doesn’t ask for any contribution from families that earn less than about $60k.</p>
<p>However, we all know that there are more low-to-middle-income students with very good stats than there are seats for them at these schools. Most have to deal with schools (private or public) that don’t meet need AND do put loans in FA pkgs (most privates gap and put loans in). The elites that meet need without loans are the rare exceptions…not the rule. </p>
<p>Your Daughter with the loans may not have gotten accepted to one of these “no loans” schools, even if she had great stats. She still may have ended up with the same amount of loans.</p>
<p>As we all know, the College Confidential world isn’t the real world. Here, most college-bound kids are heading for “sleep away” schools. In the real world, most of these kids will be commuting to their local state school or community college.</p>
<p>This same thread is in 2 other forums (by another poster)…maybe they all can be merged???</p>
<p>Can someone explain to me why its fair that a kid who comes from a family that makes 60k should be able to come out of school without loans and kids who’s families make more have to take loans, or atleast its part of the finaid package. I have heard the sorry story of “well these low income kids have it rough because the parents make such little money” blah blah blah. But the fact is that at the end of the 4 years that poor kid now has no debt. Yet they have a truly “equivalent” education as the kid who’s parents make 120K. So why does the middle income kid have to have 5k loans each year, totalling 20K at the end of 4 years, but not the poor kid. At that point they both have the same earning potential or atleast could have the same earning potential, depending on what they decided to major in. And for arguments sake lets just assume they both graduate with the same degree. Why does the middle income kid have to take out loans to pay for college when the poor kid is simply excused. I understand the fact that the poor kid gets the free education, but why not equal debt? It just seems to me that middle income families are punished for doing well and their kids are too!</p>
<p>I think the argument is that the low income kid can’t resort to parents for help if paying for loans becomes a problem. However, even if that’s true, I wouldn’t say that a family that earns - say $90k - can help paying back loans…they may have loans themselves to cover the EFC.</p>
<p>Also…these low income kids do often end up with loans because they’re often given a “student contribution” or work-study and have to opt for the loans instead…even at the “no loan schools”.</p>
<p>
You’re right. I guess my kid was lucky he lives in an area that the unemployment rate is double digits and his dad’s company downsized and eliminated 75% of their workforce. He is also lucky that his father was out of work for over two years and only recently was able to get a part time job. He is lucky that his dad had to liquidate 401k to keep the bank from taking the house. If only your kid could be so lucky. </p>
<p>P.S. He is also lucky he scored a 35 on his ACT and graduated with a 4.0 UW GPA to get in a great school that provided him with the opportunity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly - a completely ridiculous statement that calls the entire article into question. What planet has he been living on?</p>
<p>
Interesting argument, inserted paragraphs for readability.</p>
<p>Kdog044,</p>
<p>While your situation is unfortunate, how is it different from someone who was unemployed for extended period of time until just right before their kid goes to college? For financial aid purpose your kid is better of, while I don’t see how the other family is able to contribute to their kid education while trying to dig out of financial ruin. In fact many on this board will tell the other family that colleges expect family to contribute from past, current and future earnings. Therefore my question to you is whether or not you set some money aside for your son’s education while being gainfully employed in the past? </p>
<p>P.s. You are right, your son is lucky to receive need based financial aid, no doubt sponsored in part by taxpayers near you. Unless the only aid your son is getting is merit based, his grades and ACT are irrelevant in this conversation; your son is not the only kid with great stats, many of high stats kids receive no aid.</p>
<p>Outside of financial aid, households that make 60k are generally not getting any special benefits. What this means is that between 60k and 120k there is a solid 30-40k net, which a family can choose to spend however it wants. The family that makes 120k is probably choosing to live in a bigger house, drive a better car, take more vacations than the one making 60k. But those are luxuries.</p>
<p>High cost-of-living areas are an exception to this, but all this means is that financial aid should have a COLA adjustment for everyone. The high COLA will hurt even more for the family that makes 60k.</p>
<p>Do a lot of people in the 60k+/- income range really get full financial aid for their kid’s college?</p>
<p>Maybe I’m misinformed, but I think many (most) people in that range are very dependent on student loans! They may indeed get some grant money that people making 100k+/- don’t get. But there’s usually still a big gap and they have tighter budgets, obviously, than families who make more.</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>No, not a lot of people. But, yes, the smallish number who go to the few elites that are no-loan schools with no contribution for those who earn $60k or less.</p>
<p>Most schools aren’t that generous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a very simple solution. While your child is in college, cut your family income to $60k. You’ll probably also need to get rid of some of your assets so that they’re more in line with a family earning $60k. Then the school will award your child full aid without any loans. Voila!</p>
<p>Paperplane: Like mom2collegekids said this situation only pertains to a few of the elite schools. However, thats my point. This child who has worked extremely hard, and undoubtly even harder then the kid living in the 3 bedroom house with the white pickett fence, get the tuition, room and board all for free. OK, I have no problem with that. But he/she comes out in four years with the same outrageously prestigious diploma, the same internships, networking and alum as the 120K kid but he has no loans. Nope not fair.</p>
<p>So cc’s can say “oh trade places. Live on a 60K salary and see how it feels.” But thats not my argument. I’m not saying the low income kid doesn’t deserve a break. Absolutely not!!! Just can’t see why he can’t contribute to his education like every other red blooded American kid.</p>
<p>
You’d have to ask the PRIVATE schools that do this what their rationale is. After all, they can do what they want to with their grant money. I personally agree that there’s no reason a lower income student can’t also take some (minor) loans. Though this does bring up the same question about kids from Upper income homes who don’t have to personally contribute…</p>