<p>Just because your from an Upper income family doesn’t mean your not taking a loan. Upper income doesn’t mean millionaire status. As a matter of fact I think it would be surprising to most at how many kids are taking loans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m betting that there are an awful lot of kids at those tippy-top no-loans-in-your-FA-package-if-your-household-income-is-under-$60k schools who aren’t taking out loans. They’re coming out of schools like HYP with the same degree as our hypothetical red-blooded middle-class American kid, and with no loans. Thing is, they’re from families which have annual incomes starting at $200k and going up from there. So no, not every kid is contributing to their education by taking out loans…and I see that Erin’s Dad just made the same point. </p>
<p>A family earning $120k with typical assets is going to pay $12k a year for HYP (and I think Stanford is similar, isn’t it?). That’s a bargain, a fraction of their EFC. If they want their kid to have some skin in the game and ask them to take out $5k a year in loans, that’s their parental perogative. If they can’t afford to pay even the $12k and that’s why the kid takes out loans, I’m not feeling much sympathy.</p>
<p>College Navigator says that at Harvard 4% of students are receiving Federal student loans and 9% are receiving other loans. Average annual loan is $4k. </p>
<p>Harvard’s FA assumes that all students will earn $1500 from summer work and $2500 from working during the school year. I’d think that the college helps students find work, and that it would be available for any who wanted it, but that some may choose to take out loans rather than take on a part-time job.</p>
<p>I know lots of kids who’s families are making 200K and taking loans. 200k is not that much money when you live in NY, especially Long Island or NYC. No that doesn’t mean you live in a mansion. Just a normal house for LI with high taxes. So the salaries are relative to the cost of living for the area…Doesn’t mean they have more disposable income than someone making half the salary, living in a place where the taxes are half and the same 3 bedroom house is half the price.</p>
<p>I am with DungareeDoll on this issue. Not all mommies and daddies who have $ are paying for their children’s college. Many of those adults did it on their own and expect their kids too also.</p>
<p>I agree that there should be no 100% FREE ride based on need. If you earned (won) it through academics or athletics or some other way than need, that is different because it was EARNED. There is no reason that the subsidized loans should not be in every FA package. Just because the parents fell on hard times, made bad decisions, didn’t get good jobs, had too many kids, didn’t plan for the future, or had bad luck doesn’t mean one student should graduate with loans while the child of of a family who planned and can contribute should be stuck with loans. (students of both should also have tried to save also.)</p>
<p>I mentioned on another thread that Community College is a viable option. Use the time to also work and save for the 2nd 2 years. ESPECIALLY if the parents have recently become unemployed. Commute rather than live away.</p>
<p>Agree that privates have more $. Son got schollarship and grants to a private school. Hated it and transferred to in-state public with no grant and no scholarship for almost the exact same out-of-pocket. They will provide comparable educations. The private just had $ they could do with as they pleased.</p>
<p>^^^Thank You.</p>
<p>Ds private school met 100% of need. Need can be met- for those who came in late- by any combination of grants, loans & work study.</p>
<p>EFC includes a student contribution. The entirety of her summer income went towards her tuition, she had a work study job from freshmen year & she took out Stafford & Perkins loans all four years.</p>
<p>We didn’t worry about what other families were doing, we were just happy that with her summer job & loans, we were able to meet the EFC.</p>
<p>"I agree that there should be no 100% FREE ride based on need. "</p>
<p>I agree…I think it just perpetuates an entitlement attitude. I think every kid should contribute in some way. My kids have large merit scholarships, but I still had them work part-time during the school year and lots during the summer because they need to learn the lessons of work, earning money, and managing those earnings. </p>
<p>I get annoyed when a kid with an awesome aid package complains when there is work-study included. The kid will whine that he doesn’t want to work at all during the school year (and some will opt for LOANS instead!!!) These kids want to envision a carefree 4 years on someone else’s dollar…and that doesn’t include having to show up at “some job” for 8-10 hours a week and possibly miss something fun that a pal is doing. It just encourages bad habits and a false sense of “real life”.</p>
<p>Besides no one should get a total free ride with grants…why should free funds be given for “personal expenses”? Kids should have to provide for their own shampoo and pizza out with pals.</p>
<p>
Uh, I think that anyone who is accepted into the top private school has EARNED it through academics. They just don’t offer merit scholarships because every one of their students is just as qualified. Also, there isn’t a “free ride” as you put it at any of the schools. There just may not be a parent contribution required. Also, these same school are very generous for the higher incomes as well and the average income of $60-$100K only contributes approximately 10% of the costs. </p>
<p>My son is responsible for $4500 of his expenses and it goes up to $5750 in subsequent years. He works 10 hours a week so he doesn’t have to take out loans but that’s his prerogative. He also will work all summer to help meet his obligation. I guess he should have just went to his instate public and taken out loans so you would be happy. You talk about whining but the only ones I hear are the 100K+ income parents complaining of how unfair it is.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Yes…those who are accepted to the elites with high stats have earned it.</p>
<p>I think NJ may have been referring to is lower income kids with less-than-top stats who expect a free ride with taxpayer money to a sleep-away state school.</p>
<p>By the way, I didn’t acutally read the article that started all this yet. I didn’t have time and got interested in the posts, so forgive me because I’m sure I went off topic.</p>
<p>My point was that everybody should have to pay SOMETHING unless they have earned extra $ through something that sets them apart from the majority. If the choose a school where there are no merit scholarships that doesn’t mean that some students should have the rest completely covered by FA and graduate debt free.</p>
<p>Kdog, if your son IS paying a contribution, then he is doing what he needs to do and not asking others (grants etc) to cover all his expenses. Work Study doesn’t bother me because it is not FREE $, the kids are working to earn it.</p>
<p>I don’t care if there is a LOAN, I just think the student and/or family has to bear some financial responsibility through savings/loans/combo. A student from a poor financial background should have to make SOME financial contribution at some point is what I was saying.</p>
<p>The 100k parents complain because they put into the system and never get anything out. Why would the ones who receive ever complain?</p>
<p>Work Study is great, work and earn. It’s a great concept. I wish they would apply it to welfare and stop giving some of those recipients $ for nothing…different topic!</p>
<p>There are very very few colleges that don’t require lower income and moderate income students to take out loans, and most require work study during the school year in order to meet full need. It is perfectly fair to require loans, as long as the total loans do not normally exceed the amount of available federally subsidized loans available over 4 years. It is also reasonable to expect students to cover their personal expenses with a full-time summer job. </p>
<p>Ideally, low income students would not have to do much work study their first semester, because they are likely to have the most difficult time adjusting to college.</p>
<p>Amen to that! </p>
<p>My financial aid package assumed that after my son took a student loan and contributed ‘X’ amount of dollars from summer/school year employment then we can afford to pay the rest.<br>
At this point I’m not complaining about paying the full price tag. I just want to see that all kids get a fair shake. Just because I have been deemed ‘able’ to pay the remainder of the bill doesn’t mean I have that money. No I don’t live a lavish lifestyle, no I don’t drive a fancy car. Both of my vehichles are 11 years old. No I don’t go on grand vacations. I haven’t even had a vacation in years…But thats okay. I didn’t have to let me kid go to an expensive private school. It was my choice. However, I’m not sure why a low income kid has to have that lavish option either. Then come out completely debt free. Like njfootballmom said, the fact that they have work study isn’t enough. I really wouldn’t consider work study aid. Its a job and you work for what you do. Every kid going to college -rich or poor or in between, should be busting their butts to make as much as they can to help with the finances.</p>
<p>There are a whole bunch of things getting mixed up in one big snake ball here.</p>
<p>The kid from a family which earns no more than $60k a year, and who is graduating debt-free is only getting that great deal from a school that offers exceptional financial aid. That’s Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. Not a state school. All kids at tippy-tops are expected to contribute to their education via work during the year and the summer. They are therefore making a financial contribution to their own education. </p>
<p>Parents earning a household income of $100k who send a child to one of those tippy-top schools are going to pay about $12k a year. They receive over $40k of institutional grant aid. That’s not receiving “nothing”. It wasn’t so many years ago that families in this income range received far, far less in FA from these schools. </p>
<p>Parents earning a household income of $200k or more are going to be full-pay based on financial need. If they attend a tippy-top school, they may have to use loans. If this is the height of unfairness–that a child from a comfortable but by no means stinkin’ rich family needs to borrow even $10k a year to attend one of the outstanding institutions of higher education in the world, which they’ve been fortunate enough to be accepted to, because even after working their hearts out through high school it’s still like buying a lottery ticket to apply, and who could choose to attend other schools which would offer generous merit aid that would cover shampoo, pizza, and also beer and conditioner–well, then as far as I’m concerned we’re all living in the Garden of Eden. :)</p>
<p>Work Study is great, work and earn</p>
<p>===========</p>
<p>I agree. I just get frustrated by kids who post who state that they don’t want to work “at all” during their college years…they have some wild-haired notion that their college years should be 4 years of going to class in the morning, and then having afternoons, evenings and weekends to do as they please…with studying done when there’s nothing else that is more fun going on. At first they may claim that they won’t have time to work, but usually it slips out that they fear that they will have some scheduled work-shifts that coincide with something fun that friends are doing. </p>
<p>Granted, they may be thinking that the more affluent students don’t have to work, so why should they have to. But, in truth, even many affluent families require their kids to earn their own “pocket money” and “pizza money” and so forth. However, even if the most affluent don’t work, these kids need to accept that they aren’t in that situation and the goal of FA isn’t to create some perfectly level playing field with rich kids. If so, what’s next?..including FA for designer clothes and handbags??</p>
<p>(actually, one of the presidents of an elite LAC actually has suggested providing FA for low-income students to buy “nicer clothes” and to pay for their families to fly out for family weekend (and get them some nice duds, too!) Of course, this isn’t with taxpayer money, but still “out there”!!</p>
<p>
That’s just it, the instate public’s don’t offer that kind of aid. Let me give you an example. The first year my daughter was at the instate public our EFC was less than 7K. The COA was around $24K. She was offered around $5K in grants. The rest of her package was $5500 sub/unsub loans, $500 Perkins loan, and $2500 work study option. That left around a $11K shortage which we ended up paying through a PLUS loan. </p>
<p>Even her past year with a lower EFC and around $30K COA she had $16.5 in grants, $7500 sub/unsub loan, $1000 Perkins loan, $3525 outside scholarships (she applied for on her own), and $1250 work study (she studied abroad one semester).</p>
<p>So where is the “free ride”? That’s is the point of the article that the top privates might be a better bargain.</p>
<p>Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2collegekids
I think NJ may have been referring to is lower income kids with less-than-top stats who expect a free ride with taxpayer money to a sleep-away state school.</p>
<p>Kdog quote: That’s just it, the instate public’s don’t offer that kind of aid. Let me give you an example. The first year my daughter was at the instate public our EFC was less than 7K. The COA was around $24K. She was offered around $5K in grants. The rest of her package was $5500 sub/unsub loans, $500 Perkins loan, and $2500 work study option. That left around a $11K shortage which we ended up paying through a PLUS loan. </p>
<p>You’re right…but that doesn’t stop kids from complaining that all of their COA isn’t covered with tax-payer grants at state schools. I think the UCs in Calif may be the most generous with tax-payer grants for low income kids…with B&G promise, Cal grants, UC grants, and Pell/SEOG…an aid pkg can have $17k+ of taxpayer money in it…and then the complaints come because there’s also loans and work-study for the rest of COA.</p>
<p>Kdog, were your D’s stats in line with HYPS admission? If so she could have gone to any number of other state (or private) schools virtually free. That’s why I consider this whole argument specious.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Good point…with HYP-like stats, there are schools that would have given a full-ride merit…plus get Pell for being lowish income.</p>
<p>And at some other schools, she could have gotten at least “free tuition” and then student loan, work-study, and Pell could pay for the rest.</p>
<p>
No, her stats were not in line with HYPS but not poor either (27 ACT and 4.0 UW GPA). My son’s were however and his is attending one of the private’s (although not virtually free). He also applied to the instate public and was not offered anything significantly higher than my daughter even with great stats. As far as other OOS state public schools, I’m sure he could have gotten higher aid but with tuition double of the instate I don’t think it would have made that much difference. Again, I agree with the crux of the article and have the personal experience to validate it.</p>