<p>Though in fact, if I understand Harvard’s FA policy correctly, you’d be better off financially making $180k than making $200k if your kid’s at Harvard. At $180K they’d expect you to pay 10% of your income, or $18k, toward the roughly $50k cost of a year at Harvard. At $200k you’re full-pay, right? So with $20k more in income you’re expected to pay $32k more towards college. And it’s even worse than that, because the additional $32k you’re paying comes from after-tax money. Depending on your state income tax rates, the extra $20k you’re nominally earning at a $200k income probably nets you something like $13k after taxes over what you’d net at $180k. So your after-tax earnings go up $13k and your out-of-pocket college costs go up $32k. That’s like a 250% “tax” on that last increment of earnings. You’re definitely better off making $180k.</p>
<p>Now I’m not suggesting this is the worst inequity in the world. I, too, am more concerned about people who lack medical insurance and kids trapped in underperforming schools. But for people right at the full-pay cutoff, college costs do hit like a ton of bricks.</p>
Not always. Depends on income, country, number of dependents, etc.
</p>
<p>
Sounds like plenty of American public universities, many of which cost $25k/yr. I would have no problem with students living at home in exchange for no cost.</p>
I’m not sure what the evidence is for this. I know that University of Michigan, for example, was modeled after German research universities. And in certain areas, notably engineering, it is the public schools that often set the bar.
I’m not sure why you think the U.S. would fail at public higher education, since there are so many top-notch schools like Michigan, Berkeley, UVa, etc., all of which were truly public-financed in the past.</p>
Just taking a moment to mention that Vandys financial aid policy is indeed generous it fully meets demonstrated need and last year replaced student loans with grants and scholarships. From their website: “The University is committed to reviewing applicants for admission without regard to their financial need, then assistance is awarded to any student who establishes eligibility for such need-based assistance on the basis of family financial criteria.”</p>
<p>There are many paths to a great college education in this country. If high-income parents are faced with the choice of draining their savings accounts in order to fully fund their childrens undergraduate costs well, that is indeed a choice, probably one of several. A student who is offered a place at an Ivy League or similar school at full cost could very possibly also have merit aid offers at other private schools, offers at prestigious OOS public schools, offers of in-state tuition at some of these, and probably the Honors program at his/her own state flagship. Each family has to answer, Whats this worth to us?</p>
<p>Although our EFC didnt qualify us for need-based aid, we quite honestly told our kids going in that we couldnt afford to pay the full fare at top private schools. We calculated that we could afford the cost of an excellent OOS public, which 2 of our kids chose; the third went with a generous merit offer. Well still have paid more than $300K total when the last one graduates, so weve made sacrifices (no boats or furs here )- but have continued to save for retirement, too. Since 18 y/os are capable of adult thinking, our kids were grateful for what we were able to give them. Would any of us have been happier or better off if theyd gone Ivy? I really dont think so.</p>
<p>Well, if a solution is found, how do you prevent all the prosperous parents from saying, “Um, I refuse to pay full freight?” I don’t see a way around this.</p>
<p>There are other taxes, such as VAT. This is what needs to be compared against American taxes.</p>
<p>It is not possible for Americans to require that students live at home. American geography is not at all comparable to that of most countries. Would one care to have most Michigan students live at home while attending college in Ann Arbor? </p>
<p>1/6 French people live in metropolitan Paris (11 million out of 61 million to be more precise).</p>
<p>I may not have been clear. I know we have, and will continue to have for the foreseeable future, excellent public universities in this country. What I’m saying is that those universities were modeled on excellent private universities that came before them. So I wonder about two things.</p>
<p>First, would our excellent public universities exist, or be as good as they are, if it weren’t for the private universities that came first, which developed unfettered by government bureaucracy, meritocratic notions of access, etc.?</p>
<p>Second, if private universities ceased to exist, would our excellent public universities become bloated and inefficient bureaucracies like most other government entities? Today they can’t do that because it would soon become obvious that they offer a lower-quality education at a higher price than their private counterparts. But what if there were no private counterparts?</p>
<p>To add a point to Marite’s assertion above: also, Europeans are not so physically mobile as Americans. My European colleagues are “appalled” at the vainglorious and tastelessly ambitious American counterparts who are willing to move far away from family members (extended) and other precious people simply to advance their career and make more money. A bit of an exaggeration perhaps, but there is a huge mentality difference. Sending a kid coast to coast 3000 miles away in search of a better college/university is not their thing. Hence, staying at home and going to college is much more common than here in USA not only for the other reasons quoted above but also because of this mentality.</p>
<p>Good point…the only thing that would get a prosperous parent to pay when he or she could otherwise pay nothing by simply refusing to do so is the thought that being a full freight payer would give you an advantage in admissions.</p>
<p>I think you’ve got your roles reversed. The University of Virginia was founded as one of the first public universities in the country by Thomas Jefferson precisely out of dissatisfaction with the sectarian religious strictures of its elder private rival William & Mary and its sister institutions in the Mid-Atlantic and New England states. UVA was the first truly secular college or university in the country—even state colleges in other states had denominational identities at the time. It was the first not to require chapel attendance, the first to offer graduate and professional degree programs, and the first to make the teaching of science a central part of its mission (until then, law, medicine, and theology were the three standard, and often the only, fields of study). It was the first to allow students to take electives, and the first to establish the principle of intellectual freedom that has become the foundation of the American system of higher education. In short,in many vital respects UVA led the way in establishing what became the standard model of higher education in the U.S. The top privates followed suit, in many cases much later.</p>
<p>The University of Michigan was also a leader and innovator, not a follower. Under its early president Henry B. Tappan, Michigan was established as arguably the first modern American research university, explicitly modeled on the great German universities which placed scientific research at the center of their mission and emphasized the seminar method of instruction, in contrast to the rote learning emphasized elsewhere. The German model had already been adopted at Oxford and Cambridge before Tappan brought it to America at Michigan. From there it spread to others, including eventually the leading privates. </p>
<p>Land-grant colleges, emphasizing “such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts,” are a distinctly American idea that was born and flourished in the public sector, first put forward with the establishment of Michigan State in 1855 and expanded nationwide with enactment of the Morrill Act in 1862. No private forerunners here, either.</p>
<p>I guess what does bother me at some level is that there is a sense that a child from a family under the magic income line has a vested right to a prestige private expensive education that is made possible for him through FA while the child from the family over that line receives no such assurances - that child is 100 percent at the mercy of his parents in his ability to attend these institutions. Why is one child afforded the vested right to this sort of education and the other not? </p>
<p>The sad “Emperor’s New Clothes” aspect to this whole ugly mess is the total hypocracy of tying one child’s ability to attend completely to the largesse and mindset of his parents while the other child is guaranteed a largesse from endowments and full-freight payors. One is given a vested “right” to this sort of education. One is not. </p>
<p>And of course we must always remember that uncomfortable truth - these children are, in fact, adults for whom their parents have absolutely no legal or financial responsibility in the eyes of our legal system.</p>
<p>Yes, I call this a convoluted ridiculous mess. Yet I am one of the lunatics participating!</p>
No, obviously students would attend schools closer to home. I’m not sure why this would be “impossible” in America, when it works all over the world. It’s a problem only if there are enormous differences in funding between schools and when only a few are considered elite. Seems to work fine in Canada, which has a comparable geography and lower population density.</p>
<p>I think sewhappy has a point and I strongly agree with her.</p>
<p>I don’t see why when a child becomes an adult at the age of 18, who can vote, who is required to die for the country, who has legal responsibility for all of his/her actions,… still has to depend on his/her parents’ income for college education.</p>
<p>American philosoply of life is absolute freedom for every individual. But when coming to college education, the young adults don’t have much freedom. It’s not all about middle class parents paying for their children to go to selective private colleges. The majority of poor students don’t get enough need-based FA at public colleges either. Many parents have money but don’t want to pay for children to college, regardless how much the cost is. Why the young adults have to suffer this? We have seen many out-loud cries of HS seniors on CC.</p>
<p>We don’t have to compare the US to European or other countries in order to know how to fund the young adult’s college education. We, American people tend to think we are better than people in other countries. But when comparing some good things that other countries have and we don’t, we tend to bring up excuses to justify the difference. I believe parents still need to pay to fund free college education for every student but they can pay a different way. Instead of paying for our own children at college time, we can pay accordingly when we start having the first job. When our children finish HS, they can attend any college that they are admitted too, regardless we are making 20K or 200K a year. And there will be no bitterness. Employers also have responsibility to contribute to college education. It does not make sense for the government to require employers to pay for employee healthcare, but it would make more sense if the government ask the employers to pay for college education. After all, Students graduating from college will go to work for the government or private employers. The current system does not only create political rivalry gridlocks, but it also denies the young adults the opportunity to have freedom to fulfill their dream.</p>
Don’t overestimate the amount of help families below the “magic income line” will receive from even the most generous schools. We were well below the line and even with financial aid, we still found private elites completely unaffordable.</p>
<p>What bothers me is that access to any particular college depends on parental income (whether high or low.) Most Americans may find this to be fair and logical, but I think it’s appalling. I don’t think a quality education belongs in the category of luxury items that only some can afford. I believe that most of the rest of the world has done the right thing by separating access to higher education and parental income.</p>
<p>In certain fields, yes, the SAT will be relevant for a long time. I bet your son will be asked his SAT scores when he interviews for a “real” job next year, if he hasn’t already put it down along with his GPA on his resume.</p>
<p>My son had his SAT and GPA in his resume after 3 years’ of work experience.</p>
<p>Who are all these employers who ask about SAT scores and GPA? I don’t think I have ever been asked for those things. Maybe it’s because I didn’t get a real job until I had a master’s degree, so they assume I must have been a good student.</p>
<p>I once had a potential employer ask me for the exact date that I started my first job. I said I could only narrow it down to the month. The HR person told me that they had to have the exact date for their database. I told her that if my job really depended on such a trifling detail, then her company and I were probably not meant for each other. That’s pretty much how I would feel today if they asked me for my SAT score. (I do remember it. I just don’t see how it’s relevant anymore.)</p>
<p>Yes. We will see how much longer America can remain the higher education superpower with the present model. Again, so many parallels with the health care situation.</p>
)- but have continued to save for retirement, too. Since 18 y/os are capable of adult thinking, our kids were grateful for what we were able to give them. Would any of us have been happier or better off if theyd gone Ivy? I really dont think so.</p>