<p>no, I’m not blaming Harvard - just using them as an example. However, I do think their policy of providing generous aid up to 180K is pretty extraordinary (and not necessarily in a good way).<br>
Yes, the system is dysfunctional across the board.<br>
Bottom line is you have to know how to play the game. Know the ins and outs of financial and merit aid and do the best you can. Regardless, it’s hard to see folks who clearly don’t need the dollars get showered with riches. (Harvard or state school at a higher price…talk about a no-brainer).
Note: my teacher friends are spending the next two weeks touring Europe…nice.</p>
<p>I don’t think I would want to lower my $200k+ income to less than $180k for the sake of getting financial aid. In fact, knowing that I could pay for my kids’ tuitions, albeit with some loans, I deliberately did not steer them toward institutions where they could get merit money. There are many other kids just as bright who could really use the aid. </p>
<p>I’m in full agreement with Blossom. </p>
<p>So teachers are going to Europe? Good for them. Educational, too.</p>
<p>What is dysfunctional is not the Harvard of the world charging $50k+. It’s the state flagship universities admitting more OOS students AND charging more to in-state residents. If a family makes $50k and is expected to pay $20k for its student to attend the flagship university, that is far more of concern than what Harvard’s finaid policies are.</p>
<p>Sewhappy:</p>
<p>As far as treating 18 year-olds as children for the purpose of finaid, someone please tell me how an 18-year old can be expected to pay for college out of their own income, whether it’s $50k per year at Harvard or $20k at UMass.</p>
<p>I think Harvard’s generous aid is really wonderful and an all around great thing to do.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with aid capping at a certain level, I really don’t. There does have to be a point at which people take care of their own kids. As a conservative, I’m all about that. For myself, the only small issue I have is that sometimes the snapshot in time doesn’t reflect the entire picture. I also think that kids coming from a certain income level aren’t six-of-one and half-a-dozen of another providing only the “upper middle class” perspective in the diversity area. </p>
<p>Finally, my hubby is a NYC garbage man and many (most?) of his co-workers work second jobs, as do many police and firemen, bumping up their incomes because they work harder than most people. Which is admirable and lots of other people who don’t have those incomes and choose to snark at the people who do, need to see the whole picture and consider how hard they’re personally willing to work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with the general premise – and I do agree that elite colleges serve as “smart stamps” that you wear on your forehead – but I would have two addendums to this (addenda?) …</p>
<ul>
<li>What is “elite” in a given field isn’t necessarily correlated with “elite” overall (engineering being a great example - UIUC or Purdue aren’t elite schools, but they are well known and regarded within engineering).</li>
<li>The degree to which this “smart stamp” is looked at as a signifier of talent or promise goes down after one has taken and performed well in one’s first job. And if you’ve performed well in your first or subsequent jobs, there are very few fields in which a solid, top performer would be then turned down because “oh, he didn’t go to Harvard.” It’s immaterial at that point.</li>
</ul>
<p>Zoosermom:</p>
<p>I agree that the criteria for aid are not perfect. It would be better to ask how long a family has been at that income level, or asking for several year’s worth of tax returns to get a better picture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see your point, but “immaterial” is too strong a word. I have changed industries several times in my career, so that my past performance is not always relevant to my chances of success in my next position. But plenty of times I’ve heard, “Well, you have an engineering degree from [master’s alma mater], so obviously you can handle it.” (Sometimes it’s true, sometimes not.)</p>
<p>I agree that it may make more of a difference if changing industries. If staying in the same or a related industry, I have seen no instance where, past a certain point, anyone’s really looking at the undergrad OR grad degrees in evaluating people for promotions. On the jo performance is really what counts.</p>
<p>I have been greatly surprised at how many doors are opened to me because of the law school I attended. I have gotten interviews for jobs based on that alone- even after 25 years of practice. Yes, your performance matters, but the “smart stamp” really can help, at least in some professional fields. I think it is stupid, to tell you the truth, but it’s the reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Despite the fact that my graduate degree offered me a more rigorous education than my BA, people still see UCLA first and then only briefly comment on my UCSD MA. I even had one person ask why I “downgraded” after UCLA.</p>
<p>Silly? Yup. But it definitely happens. </p>
<p>Let’s be clear: employment markets are NOT efficient.</p>
<p>I almost forgot independent consultants. A consultant with a degree from an elite school has a big leg up on those without. It’s a marketing tool.</p>
<p>Am I just batty on this issue? Does no one else see the lack of logic in colleges taking into account parental income in determining the tuition they charge ADULT students?</p>
<p>Going back to my hypothetical case of the very smart, motivated student accepted at top elite expensive schools whose very prosperous parents refuse to pay the exorbitant tab - what possible chance does said student have of attending? Absolutely none.</p>
<p>I don’t know the solution to the mess. I suspect it might be similar to health care, though. There is a lot of bloat and a ridiculous rate of inflation. The cost structure itself warrants scrutiny - if the costs can be brought down, then actually it is possible that a kid could pay for Harvard or Vandy or Berkeley themselves with jobs and a reasonable level of debt. I think it would be a very healthy move to simply take mom and dad out of the pricing equation. For one thing, these kids would feel a heck of a lot more autonomy and ownership of their education.</p>
<p>Or perhaps as with health care we should look to the European model? Isn’t college free in France?</p>
<p>College is free in a lot of countries, where all of the college are public. Many Americans have a philosophical problem with that. I don’t mind in principle—after all, isn’t it the public’s responsibility to education its next generation?—but I don’t have any faith that our government wouldn’t screw it up. The only thing keeping our public universities honest and efficient is the fact that they want to be as good as the private institutions they’re competing with.</p>
<p>(I have a feeling the top has just been popped off an extra-large can of worms.)</p>
<p>colleges will charge what the market will handle. When an adult(18 +) is held accountable for all debts incurred, college tuition (no co-signing of loans) on their own dime, perhaps it would revert to the early 80’s. It would take a few years of fewer attendees(more going to 2 year then going on to 4. But… I doubt it, with a Bachelors the new HS diploma, and HS pushing 95% college attendance and everyone must go to college the new mantra, some parents will hock their heads to pay for it. What strange things I see locally is parents pushing athletics(sports camps/ private coaching) to an almost dizzying rate “thinking” Johnny and Susie will just get an athletic scholarship to take care of the lack of $$$ to send them.</p>
<p>another thing I noticed with D HS friends that attended private HS that went onto private(BC/Fordham/BU) colleges with little aid above unsubsidized loans, most of them have or will be transferring Sophmore year to state Universities.</p>
<p>Those who are less talented or less able in terms practical skills or the tangible application of knowledge will definitely benefit more greatly from having a degree from an elite school. They will get the benefit of the doubt from others who will sometimes assume they offer qualities they do not actually possess. That is one of the great advantages of having a “smart stamp” from such an institution.</p>
<p>However, those with real talent and ability need not be so concerned as they will most likely succeed from the point of wherever they get that first foot in the door. While some might need the comfort of a high octane brand they can peddle from place to place, others move well beyond that by producing an exceptional body of work, demonstrated skills, and accomplishments that preclude the need for anyone to be reminded of their academic pedigree. </p>
<p>Some lucky souls are endowed with having the best of both worlds and should not be slighted one bit by any because of it. Others have to make it on the premise that talent transcends the label on a degree, which is absolutely true. Thus, there’s a pot of gold at the end of both rainbows for those with real smarts and a little moxy to go along with it. Everyone here has basically said that in so many words. </p>
<p>The only people with a real problem are those who are neither talented nor skilled enough, have low social IQs, and/or never fully mature. And smart employers know there are still far too many of those alighting from all schools, elite and non elite alike.</p>
<p>Apparently, “smart stamps” do matter long after we think they should. For example, we were surprised at how many employers asked for SAT scores from our college junior when he applied for summer internships. One would have thought that previous work experience, college GPA, courses taken in the relevant field, and even the reputation of the college would have been sufficient for this purpose.</p>
<p>There have been previous discussions on this board about tax-funded higher education, which I would prefer. There are plenty of detractors, but like healthcare, I believe this is another instance in which Europe and Canada have gotten it right. I do not agree with the American system in which parental income determines a student’s educational options.</p>
<p>
I don’t agree with this at all. Public schools have a different mandate – to serve the residents of their states – and the competition with privates is based on price. Even without the giant endowments of private schools, there are plenty of public universities that are excellent and house departments with higher rankings than privates, including Ivies.</p>
<p>I would like to add that in the rest of the world, it is the public universities that are the most prestigious. Private colleges are often viewed as the refuge of rich students who could not meet the admission standards of public schools.</p>
<p>College is “free” in other countries. But taxes are higher. Way higher.
I’m familiar with the French system. Some campuses are like zoos. Most students live at home. Classes are crowded. There is a degree of rationing and limits that no Americans would tolerate. My brother attended university in Paris while I came to this country for college. Our experiences were like night and day. Mine was by far the better one by a very very long chalk.</p>
<p>Sewhappy. So what do you think colleges should charge 18 year-olds? $1,000, $2,000, $20,000? Where would the money come from to pay for buildings, food, salaries, maintenance, etc…</p>
<p>sewhappy, even if parents weren’t explicitly considered, they’d still be part of the equation. For every kid of well-off parents who say they’re not paying anything, there are similarly well-off parents who are willing to pay. Some student may indeed end up feeling more ownership of their education, because they’re paying for it. Others won’t notice any difference, because their parents will still write the checks needed so that their child doesn’t have to work or take out loans. </p>
<p>Plus, if the University of California (to use our state’s institution) and Cal State suddenly were free, taxes would increase to cover free tuition. If the federal government were to offer to cover tuition even at private institutions, that increases federal tax burden. I might still end up saving money for my family even if my tax burden goes up, but do I really want to direct tax dollars in this particular way? Can’t say I do, and our income will make us a full-pay family whereever the children attend school.</p>
<p>Sewhappy, you can’t be serious. You think the critical issue facing higher education today is all the affluent people who could afford to send their kids to Harvard but refuse to pay? I say, it’s their money, let them spend it how they wish. Too bad the kids get #$%^ but kids get #$%^'ed every day in America and nobody gives a damn. What about all those babies whose parents are refusing to let them get inoculated so now the kids are getting whooping cough and all those diseases we thought we eradicated 20 years ago???</p>
<p>I think it’s sad that so many affluent parents in my community will pay through the nose for private soccer coaches and dance lessons and ski lessons and all sorts of stuff that I could never afford and then claim that they don’t have a nickle saved for college. But they ain’t my kids. I think any solution that involves me as a taxpayer bailing out yet more short-sighted or stupid rich people is a bad one. How else to make college “free” for the children of the affluent but cheap?</p>
<p>So no, I don’t agree with you. The children of the affluent have benefited from their parents resources for 18 years which gives them a head start of the children of the poor. If they can’t go to the college of their dreams because their parents don’t think it’s worth trimming their standard of living in order to finance it… well, there are other avenues to a college education in America. As so many of the children of the middle and working class who enter ROTC show us day after day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. But I wonder if they ever would have gotten to where they are if elite private institutions hadn’t set the bar so high in the first place.</p>
<p>I have this image of the U.S. government allocating a few trillion dollars cuz we need us one of them universitees, subcontracting the project to Halliburton, and ending up ten years later with three half-finished cinderblock buildings and a summer class in rat biology. In a world where elite private universities weren’t leading the charge in higher education, that could happen.</p>