SAT test and wealth.

Parents Forum
21

<p>padad:</p>

<p>I did not try to analyse the entire study, I just posted my reaction to mini's "no tragedy" statement. Maybe it's "no tragedy" for those in 3-4 quintiles, and those kids ARE better off (at least financially) in public universities (and no, I was not surprised at all, why would I?). And maybe it's "no tragedy" for the kids from states with strong state universities AND strong state-level finaid.</p>

<p>But yes, when UIUC (in-state sticker price over $20000) offered a token $2500 grant to our friends' son (EFC under $5000) - it was in their eyes a tragedy. And when I read here at collegeconfidential that Rutgers is now restricting the grants: only families with EFC under $4000 are now eligible - it looks to me as a tragedy for NJ families with EFC >= $4001 (will they have to borrow $18000 per year? would not their kids be better off at "100% need" private colleges?). </p>

<p>It's easy to say "Penn's loss is UCLA's gain" - if the student lives in CA. Looks like things are not that rosy to the kids from IL or NJ or I don't know how many other states...</p>

22

<p>Marmat,
My daughter is a at a 100% need private college. Last year, for various reasons, our FAFSA EFC was under $3500 but I spent about $12,000 for my daughter to attend. She had a grant of almost $31K, loans + work study and I made up the difference. </p>

<p>The problem is that the FAFSA EFC is rarely the same as the CSS Profile EFC, especially for any family that happens to live in a home they own with accumulated equity. </p>

<p>So while I understand your concern, I think it is naive at best to think that these kids who can't afford their in-state schools are getting great financial aid at the private schools. Did your son's friend who got the $2500 grant to attend a "100% need" school have the stats to get into any of them? There are only about 40 schools that make that promise, and most are extremely selective. Most kids who have the stats to get into those schools would qualify for very generous merit aid at a number of universities. </p>

<p>Also, I don't know about NJ or IL, but in California the tuition+fees part of the costs ranges from about $3500-$7500 -- the rest of the 5-figure COA number is for housing (room & board). Many, many students attending public schools simply opt to live at home and commute -- that knocks about $12K+ off their COA right there. My son attends a CSU in a small town far from home, so commuting is not an option -- but he found a shared apartment rental for significantly less than the cost of on-campus housing. When it comes to affordability you really do have to break down those figures and sort out the hard costs from the costs that can be contained through different strategies. </p>

<p>I agree with your genuine concern for the many students who are facing difficulty even coming up with financing for their state colleges -- I just think that's its a myth to assume that most of them have the fully funded private college options you are suggesting. </p>

<p>Also -- those 100% need schools definitely do not offer all their aid in the form of grants -- much of it is packaged in the form of loans and work-study.</p>

23

<p>barrons:

[quote]
I think there is more "need" to cover for a poor kid attending an expensive private school full of relatively wealthy kids. For many the subtle things that go with wealth are tough for somebody who cannot compete financially to accept and still feel like a real part of the school. Some can handle it and others cannot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My kids are those "poor kids in expensive schools". Their take on the "problem"? There is nothing to handle, actually. What about the sob stories about students "on scholarship" not fitting with their wealthy classmates? It's not 50's. Half of the kids are getting finaid, more than half are working. Even at Harvard. The kid who serves you in the cafeteria may be a billionaire's son, for all you know. Nobody cares about the snob factor (or probably some people care, but that's their problem). </p>

<p>Well, maybe my kids are not subtle enough and just don't feel all the horrors they should feel... :) I am pretty sure there are some kids who struggle to "fit in" (as in high school you will always find some kids who is struggling to fit in with the popular crowd?). I do agree that the kids who feel compelled to compete financially with their peers (and/or can not feel like a real part of the school if they can't) probably should not put themselves to such a position. But by no means should this "problem" be every non-wealthy kid's predicament.</p>

24

<p>Marmat, I agree. elsewhere I have stated my opinion that we are indeed failing our children when state universities are no longer readily affordable to students from lower-income families. It is not a problem that can be corrected readily unless new funding source should become available. I just heard that Bush wants to increase our Iraq budget to three billion dollars per week. Imagine what that amount can do for our state universities.</p>

25

<p>Marmat, my kids report experiences closer to what Barron's describes -- a certain level of discomfort when surrounded by a lot of overprivileged kids who are often clueless about the impact of income disparities. There are also plenty of kids on financial aid, but the income differences definitely created some social barriers and influenced choice of friends & activities. </p>

<p>I'm just curious: do you send your kids money (like an allowance) while they are at school? Do you pay for any of their purchases, like text books?</p>

26

<p>calmom,</p>

<p>Both my sons are at 100% need private colleges. Princeton's EFC was less than FAFSA all three years (no wonder, Princeton is known for great finaid, so I will not even talk about this son). The other son's EFC comes out the same or slightly higher than the Federal EFC, less than $1000 difference. We do not own a house - I know that's a rare situation for middle-class families, but mini was talking about poor kids, was he not? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Did your son's friend who got the $2500 grant to attend a "100% need" school have the stats to get into any of them? There are only about 40 schools that make that promise, and most are extremely selective.

[/quote]

I don't know all his "stats", but SAT was well over 1500, and he had several 5's for AP tests. Well, my son got the same $2500 offer from UIUC (later upped to $4000), and he does attend a 100% need college now, so my guess is that the friends' kid would qualify, too. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Most kids who have the stats to get into those schools would qualify for very generous merit aid at a number of universities.

[/quote]

But obviously, not at UIUC... :)</p>

<p>Maybe other private universities, a bit less competitive? But why would a poor kid (we are still talking about poor kids, right?) want to go to a less competitive college, if his EFC is very low, and he is capable of getting to a "100% need" one?</p>

<p>
[quote]

Also, I don't know about NJ or IL, but in California the tuition+fees part of the costs ranges from about $3500-$7500

[/quote]

Tuition, fees, books and personal expences (from collegeboard data)
UIUC $14264
Rutgers $12872
AFAIK, similar numbers for UVA and UMich... and of course, it is not always possible to live at home, and many universities require on-campus housing for the first year.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree with your genuine concern for the many students who are facing difficulty even coming up with financing for their state colleges -- I just think that's its a myth to assume that most of them have the fully funded private college options you are suggesting.

[/quote]

I was just answering the flippant mini's "no tragedy" comments... </p>

<p>Of course most of the poor kids will not have those options! But I thought this was a thread about high-stats high-need kids? All I'm saying that this particular kind of students may be much better off at "100% need" colleges. And yes, if their family will choose the "state college only" route - that can turn out to be a tragedy for them. imho.</p>

<p>Oh, and yes, DS has work-study and loans (subsidized) in his package. But with just-over-$4000 EFC, how much would he have to borrow to attend Rutgers? Does not look good at all... (granted, I know about no-grants-under-$4000 rule only from postings at CC, so my estimates are based on this information)</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
Marmat, my kids report experiences closer to what Barron's describes

[/quote]

But your son is at Cal State, is that right? Well, if the experiences are the same at private and public colleges, it makes no sense to avoid the private ones because of these considerations, no?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm just curious: do you send your kids money (like an allowance) while they are at school? Do you pay for any of their purchases, like text books?

[/quote]

We pay for their books (but they try to buy them online cheap anyway). We buy the plane tickets. Oh, we gave each of them about $200 for the incidentals (same as their sister at public university). Other than that, they are on their own. If they need money, they work. If they don't feel like working, they don't. </p>

<p>DS was telling us that for the fraternity initiation dinner, many of the kids buy the (required) suits at a thrift store; and the kid who came up with the cheapest suit ($5) was congratulated by everybody. This and similar tidbits about their college life do not leave any impression of an atmosphere that is "preppy", snotty or otherwise uncomfortable for them. They do have some friends and roommates who are much more wealthy than they are, but there were no incidents on this account. Whatsoever. And they do have friends and roommates who don't go out, don't order pizza or don't fly home for Spring break because of financial considerations. Neither of the friends thinks it's a big deal...</p>

<p>Yes, I did ask them (several times) about all those horrible feelings they are supposed to experience when a classmate spends his Spring break in Europe. Or flying their private jet. Well, it appears that they are not familiar with anybody who does this... Either there is some kind of self-segregation, or the classmates do not feel that bragging is a virtue, I don't know.</p>

<p>Well, guys, I am not trying to tell that nobody experiences that subtle pressure barrons described... Sure, some people do (and some people feel uncomfortable because they can't keep up with the Joneses). I am just telling that my kids do not experience anything like that (and it seems to them that none of their friends do). Maybe they are thick-skinned and oblivious to what's going around. Maybe they are good at choosing their friends. I would not know.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
But your son is at Cal State, is that right? Well, if the experiences are the same at private and public colleges, it makes no sense to avoid the private ones because of these considerations, no?

[/quote]
You misunderstand the situation -- my son attended a private east coast LAC for 2 years, the comment I made about the social issues arose there -- obviously NOT at the CSU where it would be hard to find a kid from a privileged background.</p>

<p>I asked you the question about whether you pay for your kids book because I don't. My deal with the kids was I pay the bill from the bursar and I'll reimburse plane fare home, they pay the rest. I found out in January that my daughter didn't have a text book for a year-long class when she complained that she was sick & her roommate had gone home for the weekend and taken the text-book they shared. I was stunned and offered to buy the text book. She ended up buying the book with her own funds. At this point I think the kids are embarrassed to take money from me for the things that are "their" responsibility.</p>

<p>But the point is, my kids have to get the money for books and incidentals from work-- so buying text books is a big deal for them. Everything they spend money on is done with awareness of how many hours it takes them to earn that money. I think that is where they perceive a big gulf in understanding with kids who get regular checks from home, big or small. </p>

<p>You mentioned a fraternity initiation dinner. There is no way that either of my kids would spend money on joining a fraternity --- that is simply the sort of unnecessary expense that they would totally avoid. </p>

<p>I think most kids from truly poor families would be more likely to be in the situation my kids are in -- no money for anything except what they earn, generally from a work study job of 15 hours or less per week. Both of my kids ended up working 2 or more jobs at all times. I know that for both of them, the work hours also interfered with or prevented socializing.</p>

29

<p>"or the classmates do not feel that bragging is a virtue, I don't know."</p>

<p>Discretion abour personal wealth is a sign of real "class" (refinement). My D does not experience a sense of alienation or even discomfort in an overall wealthy environment. Those of wealthy origins do not flaunt it. OTOH, she has also met many middle-class students, as well as some in the upper brackets.</p>

30

<p>Just because some kids don't experience the class difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have the same question for you, Epiphany, as I did for Marmat: did you pay for your d's text books? Did you regularly send money from home? I ask that because there are a lot of poor kids who arrive on campus already facing a huge problem because they don't have the money to buy their textbooks. Try to think what their lives might be like. My daughter wasn't in that position - she earned enough money working retail the summer before college to get her through the first semester -- but you can read the financial aid section on this board and see that text book concern raised again and again. </p>

<p>It isn't a matter of "flaunting" wealth, it is a matter of living among individuals who function on an entirely different set of assumptions about day-to-day living and money (and where money comes from). They don't "flaunt"... they just don't think. They simply do not have to think about where their money is coming from, and they don't think of all of their expenditures in terms of how many hours of work each represents.</p>

31

<p>Some colleges do advance book money when financial aid students arrive on campus. In the case of my D, she also had summer earnings as well. She doesn't seem to spend a lot to enjoy social events & activities. She has both wealthy & non-wealthy friends, & gets invited to club parties & what-not & certainly feels at home there. </p>

<p>Much of the socialization on campus is connected with activities made available to all students: that being a function of the residential college system (many incredibly low-cost trips into NYC, etc.) Students from all income brackets enjoy these.</p>

<p>As to the flaunting issue, I was referring to the second-to-last paragraph in marmat's post #27.</p>

<p>I'll PM you about the other.</p>

32

<p><a href="calmom:">quote</a></p>

<p>It doesn't matter whether the correlation is causative or not -- the fact is that it is there, and reliance on SATs therefore biases the college admission process toward higher income students, to the extent that the colleges rely on the SAT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So there are factors admission could or should rely on in place of SATs that would not bias the result toward higher income applicants?</p>

33

<p>I don't know of students who deliberately flaunt their wealth, but it's easy to recognize who has money and who doesn't. And how one reacts to others having lots more money is highly individual. The resentment and comparisons, I find, is usually not among friends but among strangers or mere acquaintances. One girl I knew reacted badly when another girl talked about something "costing nothing." The first girl said that what the second one considered "nothing" represented several hours of work for her. S, by contrast, has friends who run the gamut. One has parents who fly across country to see their son perform a couple of times a year; the other is on full ride and has to stay on campus to save on plane fare. But they get along fine; the friends make sure that whatever outing they plan will be affordable for all. I don't know what happens with textbooks. I know that S shared the cost of some books with a friend who was taking the same class.</p>

34

<p>My S also doesn't seem to feel diminished or slighted by being around extremely wealthy classmates. He works for his book/spending money during the summer. We don't send him checks (except for food money because we do not pay for a food plan--the money we send is less than the food plan would cost.) He doesn't seem to resent the "fly to Europe on spring break folks." Just a different world. He is not a clubber, so he doesn't hang out with the expensive night life crowd. He wears discount clothes (we shop at Kohls) and wouldn't know name brand if it hit him over the head. He works very hard and is well aware of how many hours of work are ncessary for anything he spends.</p>

<p>He feels that the best thing about wealthy friends is that they don't seem to mind losing at poker to him....</p>

35

<p>Marite, your example of the statement about "costing nothing" is the sort of thing I am talking about. The kid who makes that comment isn't trying to insult anyone, but to the kid who would have to work all week long to earn that "nothing", the comment can be hurtful. It's not a matter of resentment so much as being in an environment where it just doesn't seem like there is a fit.</p>

<p>It also isn't a matter of "getting along" -- that's what I think adds to the frustration -- the assumption that if no one says anything, that the problem doesn't exist. </p>

<p>Here's another example: the dorm food at my daughter's college sucks -- but the city is full of great restaurants. There is a mandatory meal plan for first year students which costs an arm and a let, and only minimal cooking facilities available in the corridor-style first year dorms. My daughter hated the food. But she also knew what I had paid for it, so that's where she ate. Other kids opted to go out to eat frequently. So there my daughter is, literally feeling hungry, watching friends go out to eat again and again - they probably invited her, she probably offered a polite excuse as to why she couldn't go --and then ate dinner alone feeling miserable. Now what is my d. going to do? Throw a tantrum? Of course not -- she sucks it up and keeps her feelings to herself.... and everybody thinks that everyone is "getting along" just fine. Which they are... except that some people are feeling little slights and hurts every day of their lives, because there is no place they can go where something doesn't happen to remind them of the disparity. (My kids definitely are not the ones suffering the most- but my point is that low income students who go off to college are unlikely to have any money coming from home - and may also have to pay for their own transportation. )</p>

<p>When my son started college, all his friends would go out drinking every Thursday night, because the local taverns had some sort of tradition of not carding on Thursdays. My son couldn't afford the drinks or the cab fare, so he stayed in -- so pretty soon I knew to expect a call on Thursdays. As a parent this was kind of a mixed blessing -- I mean, I was glad that my son wasn't out drinking -- but the reality is that he was feeling pretty sad and lonely, especially the first few months while he was there. Did he "get along" with the friends who went out drinking? Of course. But the bottom line is that they did something that he didn't do because of the cost. </p>

<p>It's not a matter of feeling "resentment" -- it's a matter of feeling left out. What amazes me about these posts is the lack of empathy -- the assumption that if the kids aren't complaining, it doesn't matter. To me --I'm thinking, how can it possibly not hurt to have to turn down a social activity because of lack of money? Just because a person doesn't make an issue of it doesn't mean they aren't feeling frustrated inside.</p>

36

<p>Calmom--of course it would hurt to turn down social activities for lack of money. i guess what I am saying is that my kids don't hang with people who do social things they can't afford. My S sucked it up and ate in the dining hall the first year; now he eats out (no kitchen facilities) for cheaper than the meal plan would cost. He does have a goodpaying summer job, which affords him enough to be able to go out socially if it's cheap, and boy, living in NYC, has he gotten good at knowing where "cheap" is. He is on FA and appreciates every dollar we need to spend for him.</p>

<p>When my D attended an OOS public her freshman year, there was much more obvious class division than she encountered at the private LAC she transfered to.</p>

37

<p>calmom:</p>

<p>I gave the first example precisely to illustrate that people don't consciously flaunt their wealth. But some do resent the fact that others have money to spend whereas they have to earn every penny and watch every penny. Others don't.<br>
I have no idea what the food tastes like in the cafeterias both Ss used. But they've been raised not to waste food and would not dream of going out just to avoid cafeteria food. The food in your D's cafeteria must be truly awful if your D allows herself to feel hungry.</p>

38

<p>Tangential, but: eating out only wastes money, not food.</p>

<p>Cafeterias are fairly sophisticated. They predict and adjust in all sorts of ways for the amount of food eaten. And if that doesn't work, a school cafeteria has the luxury of feeding the leftovers back to the students in tomorrow's meatloaf. Waste not, want not, pray for real food at the end of four years.</p>

39

<p>xiggi nails it:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Flip-Floppers and wannabe statisticians

[quote]
Originally Posted by Calmom
It doesn't matter whether the correlation is causative or not -- the fact is that it is there

[/quote]

The way some posters seem to use that CC ubiquitous and pomposity-laden line "correlation is not causation" would make Senator Kerry proud. I guess when the correlation does not fit the purpose, it can be dismissed. When it does fit the "deal du jour", it does become relevant.</p>

<p>Funny how that works!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely. We need a term on CC to capture the fallacy of falsely imputing a correlation-causation fallacy. You know who the guilty parties are.</p>

40

<p>


</p>

<p>I ask for specific proof of this point, which I have already disputed above. Where is the evidence for the "therefore" in the quoted statement?</p>