<p>You're right. Thanks for the clarification.</p>
<p>Actually, I'm looking for a sugar daddy...</p>
<p>HAHAHAHA ^^ you willing to share THUMPER?? ROFL</p>
<p>Apparently Dear Abby is following this thread and advises emphatically against marriages of convenience. In today's column a reader asks:</p>
<p>
[quote]
DEAR ABBY: I am acquainted with a young man who is 18. His mother is pushing him to marry a young woman from South America so she can stay in the United States....CONCERNED
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and Abby replies:
[quote]
DEAR CONCERNED: His mother should be ashamed of herself. According to Judge Judith Champagne of the California Superior Court, the name for what you have described is "immigration fraud, and it is a felony that could, indeed, bring jail time."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess she would similarly discourage finaid fraud.</p>
<p>Yeah, those Judge Judies are just so rigid in their thinking...</p>
<p>I can understand the frustration of the parents of the Penn student, I would read them as pointing out the randomness of rule changes, not necessarily being angry. That which was marketed to them as a very good thing is now a bad thing which the school is addressing. </p>
<p>I saw a difference in some schools which have begun these programs basically being an option for kid #2 when they were not a realistic choice for kid #1...kid #2 still chose the state flagship, but she had many more options along the way. If I had taken on loans, I would have felt more frustrated than simply realising kid #1 should/could have had more schools to consider.</p>
<p>The entire financial aid thing has a strong element of randomness in that people in situations which may appear similar qualify for very different amounts of aid, or people may have great aid under FAFSA but not under Profile, due to home equity. This is the way it is and we need to make our decisions accordingly, but it is rather random in that there can be a huge difference in the way various formulas see your EFC and that can be justifiably frustrating.</p>
<p>But, yes, they chose freely to take on that debt and that's just life.</p>
<p>"I am not aware of any other nation in the world that will allow anybody who will do the work to get a bachelor's degree."</p>
<p>....it's Canada, where not only is it just as easy, it's cheaper! :)</p>
<p>""I am not aware of any other nation in the world that will allow anybody who will do the work to get a bachelor's degree."</p>
<p>I believe that college is free and entrance is automatic for any student in France who gets their "bacc", which is, I believe the IB diploma.</p>
<p>France differs from the US, however, in that students are put into vocational and academic tracks early, and the tracking system is rigid, so late bloomers are out of luck.</p>
<p>I think the US is unique in that it combines both accessibility and affordability (assuming you are not picky about where you go).</p>
<p>If Canada offers the same level of access--e.g. a community college transfer program open to anybody with a GED or high school diploma, then I'm happy to be wrong.</p>
<p>NSM:</p>
<p>The bac routinely fails up to 1/2 of those who take it. Plentyhave left school before then. As well, many of the institutions of higher learning have entrance exams. Med school, law school, Sciences Po, engineering schools begin right after high school and they have stiff entrance exams. So it's a bit of a myth to think of higher education as automatic. It's free (well, but consider the taxes) but conditions are horrible and whole fields of scholarship have been allowed to wither.</p>
<p>Another issue in Europe is how long those schools will remain "free." Most EU countries -- this is particularly true in England -- have been told to start weaning themselves from the government. They are becoming more entrepreneurial, more competitive with one another and - yes - tuition is in the works for the future. In other words, European universities are starting to emulate - for better or worse - the american model. </p>
<p>Marite, good point about the entrance exams. I actually spent a year at the Ecole Normale, where most students took a year, often more, of post-high school education that included expensive tutoring - that's on top of excellent bac scores and high grades from elite lycees. The result was an undeniably brilliant group of students - the vast majority of whom were from upper to upper middle class families - and who were a bit full of themselves, not unlike many of their Ivy League counterparts, by the way.</p>
<p>A recent editorial in our newspaper lamented the lack of government education grants, holding up as an example an exceptional but low-income student who had been admitted to a $36,000 school which had 'gapped' her. Then today the paper printed a response from another student who was bitter that she was taking on heavy debt to attend another $36,000 school. My own reponse should be printed tomorrow! As a Democrat, I am not opposed to the govt. helping people, but what's the world coming to when people actually expect the govt. to pay for expensive private schools! Geez, talk about a culture of entitlement.</p>
<p>I am addressing my comments to the very early replies to the OP. I think your sarcasm to the OP is insulting. It's not the average middle class family that expects a mercedez over a honda, or would rather have a jaguar and disown their kids. It is the low-income group that feels "entitled" to all our great country has to offer. The reality is that very bright kids of the middle class are told not to expect to go to an ivy league, go to a state school. Why is that right? The formulas that the federal government uses for EFC are ridiculous. </p>
<p>So, let the URM's with lower stats and the really, really rich, continue to fill the spots at the ivies and the highly selective schools that don't give merit aid. </p>
<p>This is the underlying reason our country is so screwed up. We reward those who underachieve. We give more aid and consideration to those who are in our country illegally than our own tax paying citizens. It's disgusting to say the least. </p>
<p>Lastly, the judgmental comments on this forum are beyond belief. It's as if everyone that posts regarding the high cost of tuition is chastized for not saving enough, or just waking up yesterday that college is around the corner. The fact is many of us have been saving for years,
but the cost of higher education has skyrocketed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is the low-income group that feels "entitled" to all our great country has to offer
[/quote]
Evidence of entitlement?
[quote]
We reward those who underachieve.
[/quote]
As a full-fare payer, I feel insulted. I want evidence that this is so. And please don't say that this was not intended to include my kids. Generalizations are generalizations.</p>
<p>Don'tPanic:</p>
<p>The case of the low income student and of the middle-class student may be very different. I would need to know more details, so this is just speculation. A low-income student may be able to afford college--any college-- only if awarded full-fare. This is often more easily available at a top and expensive college. If gapped, the student may not be able to attend and may not be able to afford less expensive colleges without aid.
A middle-class student may not be able to afford the same expensive college but may still be able to afford the state university. For example, a number of colleges in MA cost about $45k to attend. The state uni costs $15k. A middle class family may find it hard to cover four years at $45k but much easier to cover four years at $15k. A low income family might not be able to afford to set aside $15k per year for its student. As I said, just speculation.</p>
<p>PG, OK costs have skyrocketed, but as many posters in this thread have stated, it is still very accessible if you are not picky. (see #16). </p>
<p>I think it's sad that some high-achieving students are made to feel that they are being cheated if they can't afford to attend the selective schools they are worthy enough to get admitted to. College is what you make of it, and if you're a high achiever, you'll make the most whereever you are.</p>
<p>Rated:</p>
<p>These expensive schools you're referring to are 'private'. The government is not associated with them. If the schools happen to use the FAFSA as a criteria for ther financal aid, that's up to them to do in our free society. If they want to subsidize and attract URMs, then that's up to them. This is free enterprise in action. If you were referring to state schools I might agree with you on some of these points.</p>
<p>I personally do not feel that "our country is so screwed up". This comment is typically made by people who expect something for nothing from the governement (i.e. the taxpayers - i.e. me). Again - this country offers opportunity to everyone. The allegories to the Ford versus Mercedes do apply to this discussion IMO. </p>
<p>I don't think people complaining about the high costs are being chastised but if they expect someone else to pay those high costs for them, they might be. The OP on this post was likely making some light of the high cost but it strikes a chord with many. </p>
<p>My kids are attending state schools because they chose to and I feel that these are excellent schools and that they'll receive good educations and be presented with great opportunities as a result. I also feel the cost is reasonable. Do you feel that there's something wrong with attending a state school? What would be your solution to the costs at private schools - government funding (gvt funding a private enterprise??), a law capping tuition (the top schools would no longer be top schools), something else?</p>
<p>First of all I agree with DontPanic1 about the "culture of entitlement". And Marite pretty much summed it up with the comment on low income students getting the full fare at the top, expensive colleges.</p>
<p>ucla dad I see nothing wrong with state schools. Don't you see something wrong with the "top schools" being attended by primarily the rich and poor?</p>
<p>Again, my previous post was mainly directed toward the replies to the OP. Yes, as parents we know we should be saving for our children's college education (and we did). We didn't splurge all our lives at the sake of our children's college education. We are just two average parents with average incomes being told we can afford a ridiculous amount of money per year to send our child to college. So now, as parents, we must tell our child that they will need to attend whatever school gives them the most merit aid, otherwise, we jeopardize our retirement. "Dear Child, I know you have worked really hard over the last 12 years, have top grades, are in the top 1% of your class, extraordinary SAT and SAT II scores, however, you will need to attend our state university as we make just over the threshhold amount for getting financial aid, you are not a URM, and the schools you are qualified to attend do not give merit aid."</p>
<p>Rated: I teach at a school full of low income URMs. If you think they are feeling entitled, and getting whatever they want, at the expense of your kids, you couldn't be more wrong. If your EFC says you are not entitled to FA, then you are not middle class, bottom line. I'm willing to bet your income is higher than ours. We are making significant lifestyle choices to send our kids to high end schools. I don't feel everyone has to make those same choices, but to say that top schools are for poor people, Urms, and the "very wealthy" is just not so. Plenty of people who don't get aid but are no more "wealthy" than you are sending their kids to those schools. Again, it's a choice, but we make it gladly. Our retirement will be very frugal, but that's okay with us. We have made the moves necessary to make it doable. I certainly don't fault you for choosing differently, but don't assume there's some kind of game you lost when you do so.</p>
<p>What about qualifications and the most deserving student vs. the URM and/or low income student getting the spot in the top school. That's what I'm talking about.</p>