Rethinking the Costs of Attending an Elite College (Wall Street Journal)

Parent Cafe
281

<p>marite -

This may be true with the current system. But if every parent contributes to college education starting with his/her first job then the picture will be different. And nobody will feel bitter at the time the child goes to college. I saw a lot of parents say on CC that it’s unfair when a lot of poor kids get financial aid at state colleges or get free ride at private colleges while they have to pay large amounts for their kids. If everyone has the responsibility for the college cost according to their income throughout the years before the kids go to college then this bitterness would not exist. Nobody can predict that he/she will be a rich or poor person twenty years later when putting the money to the collective college fund at the early stage of life.</p>

282

<p>I don’t view higher education, or really any education, as a right of the individual. I view it as a responsibility of the society. Most of us would agree that society is ill-served by a system that allows a child to grow up unable to read. Is it not also ill-served by a system that does not give a brilliant young adult with a passion for helping others the opportunity to become a physician?</p>

<p>Before someone chimes in that all young adults have that opportunity, let me be clear: The “opportunity” to move out of your parents’ home, work 25 hours a week while trying to get good grades in a serious university, and incur tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt is no kind of opportunity.</p>

283

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, I see it too, and I call it whining. I’ve been poor and I’m (relatively) rich. I’d rather be rich and I am thankful that I am and don’t begrudge the fact that S’s roommate was on full scholarship while we paid full fare for S. My life is considerably easier than the life of roommies’ parents who worked very hard and scraped and saved to make it possible for the child to be competitive for admission at H.
I suppose I don’t understand envy.</p>

284

<p>Regarding SAT scores on resume: S keeps one version with the scores and one without. He would never include that information unless specifically asked. But about half of the companies requested his scores as part of the application. I imagine they were most interested in determining mathematical aptitude. The company that hired him made a spreadsheet comparing internship candidates, and the SAT score was one of the data points they included in their chart.</p>

285

<p>How many people are we talking about here? Is there really such an epidemic of well-off parents who refuse to pay anything toward their children’s educations? I don’t think any parent is morally obliged to send their child to a $50K/year school, even if it is the most prestigious institution in the country, and even if it’s the child’s dream school, as well. There are too many excellent other college options that can result in secure futures for both child and parent. But I haven’t noticed a shortage of parents willing to pay the full fare at HYP, whether it costs them their entire life savings or represents just a blip on their bank statement. They have the right to choose to do so; of course, if they want that particular window sticker, they have to write that check.</p>

<p>Yes, I’ve read the annual threads about parents who suddenly decide/realize they can’t foot the bill at their kids’ need-only schools. I don’t think the number of kids with wealthy parents who cut off all financial assistance would at all justify creating a free system of higher education in this country. (Is that what some posters are proposing, or am I just not reading correctly?) My God, with all the other crap we’ve got to shovel our way out of?</p>

286

<p>There are parents who don’t step up even to pay their calculated expected family contribution (EFC), but those parents are a minority of all parents of children who actually enroll in college. (For many families, the EFC is below the full list price of the college.) It may be that some larger number of academically able children who never enroll in college at all have parents like that who don’t step up. </p>

<p>See </p>

<p><a href=“Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Businessweek - Bloomberg; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf[/url]”>Error; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf[/url]”>Error; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf[/url]”>http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf[/url]”>http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/05/a-thumb-on-the-scale.html[/url]”>http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/05/a-thumb-on-the-scale.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/financial-aid-leveraging/4[/url]”>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/financial-aid-leveraging/4&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510012[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510012&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1240[/url]”>http://www.equaleducation.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1240&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf[/url]”>http://www.jkcf.org/assets/files/0000/0084/Achievement_Trap.pdf&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.reason.com/news/show/123910.html[/url]”>http://www.reason.com/news/show/123910.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.ihep.org/publications/publications-detail.cfm?id=117[/url]”>http://www.ihep.org/publications/publications-detail.cfm?id=117&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2008/11/10/colleges_reach_out_to_poorer_students?mode=PF[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2008/11/10/colleges_reach_out_to_poorer_students?mode=PF&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkBGMsvJKRKaL67qxkOCaDByDJFAD94R70G02[/url]”>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkBGMsvJKRKaL67qxkOCaDByDJFAD94R70G02&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>for background on this issue.</p>

287

<p>Well, I must confess that we didn’t “step up even” to pay our EFC, since our EFC was always the full cost of attendance at private school. EFC or not, we didn’t see how we could afford to pay that kind of money out over 12 years. But, like many upper-middle-class parents, we were able to pay a substantial amount each year - for instance, this year we’ll pay $40K at a fine OOS public school, instead of the $50K-plus that a private school would cost. That extra $10K/year over 12 years is what we couldn’t swing and still fund our retirement (no employer pension plan for either of us). None of our kids has ever reproached us on this issue. They’ve never indicated that that they think they “deserved” the full-pay schools over the excellent options they did have. I just can’t see where we’ve failed to meet our obligations as parents when we’ll have written checks in excess of $300K by the time #3 graduates. Let me tell you, it feels like we’ve “stepped up” plenty.</p>

288

<p>

</p>

<p>FAP: Ah, but from that thread I know that you have a 2010 son, so maybe we can arrange a marriage of convenience? I’m thinking of a wedding between Thanksgiving and Christmas, so the apps can go out with the right marital status. Or do you want to do it before the EA deadline? Might be kinda rushed.</p>

<p>Of course there is this matter of our kids possibly not co-operating…we might need to have our own version of a ‘shotgun’ wedding.</p>

289

<p>^ Brilliant Concept - I have a 2012 daughter coming up - perhaps a new “arranged marriage” discussion thread on CC ?</p>

<p>Seriously, I do NOT condemn any parent who backs away from a huge college price tag and steers their child toward a more financially sane alternative. Very often wish we had done exactly this with our first child. Being prudent and financially responsible is good parenting, not bad parenting.</p>

<p>I raise the issue because I question the fundamental right of colleges to link the price they charge the ADULT student to his/her parent’s income. I think this is hypocritical and has helped support a really dysfunctional college economy. I think any education in the land should be affordable by a young adult who can work part-time during the school year, full-time during the summer and take on a judicious amount of debt. This is the approach my DH and I followed and it made us feel very much in control of our lives and our future. I don’t think it’s healthy for kids like my son to be attending $200K institutions only by imposing an enormous financial cost to their families.</p>

<p>It’s certainly true that no one has a vested right to an elite education. My problem with the current state of affairs is that clearly these elite schools with large endowments and big FA budgets view students from low incomes as having exactly that - a vested right to the elite education while the students from the more prosperous families are extended no such right. They attend or don’t attend completely at the discretion of their parents. This is infantalizing and not in comformance with our legal system, which (to my knowledge) views the 18-year-old as an adult.</p>

290

<p>I’ve worked for a variety of companies in recruiting and HR. Some ALWAYS ask for SAT’s and GMAT’s and any other relevant standardized tests (TOEFL especially). Even if the candidate is 35 years old. Many candidates don’t remember and that’s fine… scores are one datapoint out of many. Some companies NEVER asked, didn’t care. And some ask for some roles and not for others. So the posters who claim it’s ridiculous to put it on your resume… for many job seekers it’s just a time-saver. Since the company will ask for the scores anyway at some point… why not put them on there?</p>

<p>Sorry to de-rail the conversation. But it is a fact that there are large, global employers out there in the real world who will ask applicants their scores. My current employer does not ask for independent verification of scores – we take it on faith. But we frequently ask for transcripts for new grads to verify GPA and courses taken. You’d be surprised how quickly the kids who “really love quantitative analysis and excel at it” according to their cover letters, end up getting C’s in Valuation or C+'s in econometrics.</p>

<p>We also fire employees if we discover they lied on their resumes so at least we are consistent. So if you graduated with a BA 25 years ago, don’t allow yourself to gradually graduate “Magna cum laude” and be a member of Phi Beta Kappa as a middle aged gift to yourself.</p>

291

<p>@Blossom: I concur. When my son interviewed his first job out of college, with KPMG, they were interested both in his SAT scores and his LSAT (which he took on a lark during sophomore year). They were interested in other evidence of ability (some writing samples, some analytic-statistical analyses, etc.). Pretty damn thorough, I’d say, even though he was coming from an excellent college and major (UChicago, economics).</p>

292

<p>Sewhappy: I don’t think you understand the concept of “vested right.” No one, however rich or poor, has a “vested right” in a college education, even at their flagship university. No one forced you to pay for your child’s Harvard education.</p>

293

<p>marite, this is the second time you have completely misrepresented what sewhappy is saying on this subject.</p>

<p>sewhappy has not stated that anyone has a vested right to higher education, but rather that some elite institution’s financial aid policies are based on their belief in such.</p>

<p>It’s as though you’re not reading the posts before you respond to them. Quite unbecoming and not the best way to keep this discussion civil.</p>

294

<p>Yes, mantori.suzuki, is correct in what I’m intending to say - there is an inconsistency in the stance of elite schools on the whole “vested right” concept. I’m not arguing anyone should or should not have the vested right to an elite education. I’m saying it is wrong to selectively provide the vested right to some students, based on parental income. The accepted student with parents who don’t earn much is granted the vested right. The accepted student whose parents earn a lot is denied the vested right.</p>

<p>But, of course, this whole line of thought is futile. There is an entrenched tradition in the US to hold the parents very much responsible for their kids’ college costs and yes, there is definitely a large and high-quality set of public schools where costs are lower for the student paying his or her own way. My point is subtle and impractical given the entrenched mind set.</p>

<p>Regarding SATs still mattering throughout career - one of the reasons our son finally chose to attend Harvard is that he thinks this practice of asking for scores for job applications is being legally challenged. Attending a school like Harvard conveys that your scores were very high. Such a degree will be a “signal” of intellectual ability if and when employers can no longer ask for scores. Of course, this will only last so long as schools like Harvard go on requiring standardized tests.</p>

295

<p>we had a perfect example in our school district last year. We had two students accepted to an IVY. One kid went for 4K, another kids parents bill was 51K. Both families live in the same socioeconomic environment. The 4K kid had a sib at another 50K Top 20 University, going for 5k the other family has an autistic sib in a private 60K a year special ed school. Guess who couldn’t attend? the difference was the 4k kid’s parents have a cash business the other are salaried employees. Not fair, against the law, but Im sure this occurs more often than not. Believe me, they could not live in this area if their true net worth is what they said it was.</p>

296

<p>No institution of higher learning that I know of has claimed that the poor have a “vested right” in higher education. Sorry, don’t buy it.</p>

<p>Yeah, cheating is rampant. Cheating on exams and papers, cheating the IRS, cheating your spouse. So what is new? </p>

<p>Only on CC do I see poverty envy and it’s not pretty.</p>

297

<p>My employer believes (and has ample statistical data to back it up) that the practice of asking for standardized test scores helps level the playing field between the kid whose parents could afford Harvard and those that could not. Why should an all 800 scorer attending U Iowa be at a disadvantage to a legacy or athlete at Harvard who squeaked in with 630’s… especially if you have ample statistical data to prove that employees with high SAT scores perform better than those with lower SAT scores???</p>

<p>I love the fact that you all hate elitism except when you don’t. And that you’d all love a level playing field except if it hurts your kid or costs you more money.</p>

<p>Companies that make hiring decisions on the basis of somebody’s touchy feely sense of “fit” are at far greater risk of legal challenges than those that consistently apply measurable screening factors. There have been many studies that show that people like to hire in their own image… so if you have a bunch of middle aged white men who joined frats at Ohio State running your assessment and recruiting program you end up with … surprise… a bunch of white men from frats in your management training programs. Which is great if any of your criteria actually have relevance to job performance… and not so great if they don’t. </p>

<p>My first job out of graduate school required all new hires to take a comprehensive, company designed math and verbal test (i.e. an SAT except they owned and scored the test.) It would have been insulting (I was graduating from a top MBA program after all) until I learned a decade later how many graduates from top schools can’t pass the test. </p>

<p>And in my last job when I had to hire editors and writers, it was scary how many graduates of top J-schools couldn’t pass our writing test. “Back in the day”, any HS graduate from a decent school system knew an adjective from an adverb but we had professionals with Master’s degrees who scored below the bar.</p>

<p>So mark me down in the “I love standardized tests” camp. Especially when you’ve got data to prove that they allow you to hire high-potential people who weren’t born with a silver spoon in their mouths, or for whom English is not their native language, or who have funny accents.</p>

298

<p>Parents and students know the cost of attending the “elite” college (and other colleges) before they decide which school the child will attend. Most low- and middle-income students realize that whether or not they can attend a college is contingent upon the cost. Are you saying that wealthy families should not have to consider the cost of attendance, as well?</p>

<p>Also, students can transfer to a less expensive school at any time, if they or their parents decide the cost is too high.</p>

299

<p>Here’s the problem I see with this argument.</p>

<p>Student A, from a wealthy family, has been accepted to an elite, wealthy institution. Who should pay?</p>

<p>Position 1. The student’s parents should pay.
Position 2. The institution should pay.</p>

<p>Now let’s say that you should accept position 2, that the institution should pay. You might give the following reason:</p>

<p>The institution is wealthy. They can afford to pay.</p>

<p>But this isn’t quite fair. The parent’s are wealthy as well. You could apply the same reasoning to get to position 1. But this is the very position and reasoning that you claim is so unfair.</p>

<p>Now let’s say you give another reason for accepting position 2:</p>

<p>The institution is paying for another another student to attend.</p>

<p>But this isn’t quite fair, either. The institution has a certain idea about what it wants to do with its money. But so do the parents. They have a certain idea about what they want to do with their money. So you could apply the same reasoning and get to position 1–you have money being spent for X, so you should have money for Y. But this is exactly what you find is so unfair.</p>

<p>I think you are taking issue with the following ideology which is what financial aid is based on:</p>

<p>The institution will take into account a family’s ability to pay, but not its desire, and provide accordingly.</p>

<p>(Let us put aside the notion of how ability to pay is determined, because this is another can of worms, obviously).</p>

<p>But you can see the pitfalls with taking into account the desire of the family to pay. I doubt that many families would say that they ‘desire’ to pay tuition. So let say we do take into account desire to pay and find very few families have the desire to pay for their admitteed children to attend. So we are back to square one. Who pays? </p>

<p>And then your answer is: the institution should, because it is wealthy.</p>

<p>But why should wealthy institutions foot the bill and not wealthy parents, or even some wealthy bystander? </p>

<p>Or perhaps you would say: We as a society should provide for the higher education of all our students at the institution of their choice.</p>

<p>But who then pays for all this? Wealthy taxpayers, most likely. The same wealthy parents who refused to foot the bill in the first place. They will end up being forced to ‘save’ for their children’s education through taxes.</p>

<p>And no one likes taxes–because we don’t like the government determining how we should be spending our money.</p>

300

<p>

</p>

<p>Here, here. The day the standardized tests go is the day the lights really go out as far as any hope for fairness.</p>