<p>Are we limiting the conversation to public U here? Both my kids went/is attending private U with very generous FA. </p>
<p>Just want everyone to know that those generous FA enables them to study at those expensive U. At the mean time, we also have to siginificantly cut our expenses to meet our part, and both kids worked/works to contribute. Few, I would guess very few, families are able to game the system. The FA officials are not stupid. </p>
<p>It is beyond my believe that some of the parents have so little knowledge of how the FA works at this information age. </p>
<p>The sub groups I could see being the hardest hit by tuitions are poor family going to for profit schools and above average income families with below average academic kids who insist on expensive private U.</p>
<p>To the original question - yes, helpping the lower income families to get a good education help every one. Provided that the receiving stduents are doing everything possible to help themself at the mean time.</p>
<p>KKMama “Why don’t we just adopt the British custom of keeping everyone in their “station”. That way our pesky poor kids won’t compete against your upper middleclass students for places in colleges. My younger one had to beat out 100’s of people for her spot in the grad school, which she’s paying for with a government grant.”</p>
<p>Most people work hard and make sacrifices to earn more money so that they can have a “better” life, e.g., acquire more or better things/services etc. When an upper middle class person decides that they cannot afford x (a particular college or whatever) they certainly do not want to see people who earn significantly less to be given x without making some sacrifice. It’s really not more complicated than that.</p>
<p>BTW - congrats to your daughter but she’s not paying for grad school if she’s received a grant. The government is paying for it. Taxpayers may consider that a worthwhile investment or not, e.g., masters degree in the history of basket weaving. If you are the one paying then it’s your decision whether to spend the money or not. If someone else is paying then it is their decision whether the money is being used wisely.</p>
<p>But society gains from giving x to those most in need of it. Upper middle class person gains. To set the system up so that upper middle class person can obtain x more cheaply while poor person (or, person with poor family) gets nothing ultimately leaves upper middle class person with s (the shaft).</p>
Would be great for the beneficiaries of the Dream Act, too! No citizenship for them unless they enter military or some kind of public service program. If only…</p>
<p>Most state U’s don’t go hard after high numbers of alums because that is not very cost-effective but do get lots of large donations. UW-Madison regularly has been in the Top 10-15 in total fundraising for all schools averaging around $350 million/yr. Most new buildings on campus–of which there are many–have a significant donation component.</p>
<p>Just the opposite, Bay. It is really easy to give away money, if its daddy’s (or you know that you will have an inheritance some day down the line). Look at Senior Class giving, for example. One of the highest, near 100%, is Dartmouth college. Clearly, few Dartmouth seniors have jobs, or need jobs, yet they can ‘personally’ donate to their school. Where does that $$ come from? Hmmmm</p>
<p>Or why does alumni giving on USNews track student body wealth (full payors) so well?</p>
<p>OTOH, a lot of Pell grantees will graduate, get a job (well hopefully in this economy), and still help out their family, as well as church/synogogue. Doesn’t leave much spending money to ‘give back’ to college.</p>
<p>Some colleges will count a $10 donation in the Senior class giving rate. It doesn’t take much to get to 100% participation, especially if the size of the class is small, like Dartmouth’s.</p>
H and I don’t really contribute to our public U. H feels that our contribution is there through the state taxes we pay which are subsidizing the school system. Since we pay a lot in property, federal, sales, and state income taxes, we feel like that’s enough.</p>
<p>You are forgetting payroll taxes in the US (which happen to be regressive and which tax only labor, encouraging the substitution of other methods of production instead of labor). The best known are the ones withheld from the gross pay seen on the employee’s pay stub (Social Security and Medicare), but there are others which are not shown on the employee’s pay stub but which must be paid (the “other half” of Social Security and Medicare). Those who are self-employed would know about these.</p>
<p>I know a number of recent Dartmouth seniors who indeed have jobs and are earning really well. Dartmouth has a rather unique internship period built into their curriculum. A great many Dartmouth students work at places like Google and Amazon while they are undergraduates. And they are compensated quite well.</p>
<p>I personally kind of cringe when you reference “mommy and daddy”. For affluent kids going full freight the “mommy and daddy” in question have worked very, very hard to become affluent and are now investing what they’ve earned in their kids’ educations. Is that really something to sneer at?</p>
<p>Perhaps it is willful. In an economic downturn, people seem to want to have others to blame for something or resent. This leads to exaggerated perceptions of what others appear to get that they see as “unfair”. For example:</p>
<ul>
<li>Full need-based ride at public university. (Is there such a thing?)</li>
<li>Huge racial preferences (for some other race). (Sure, such things exist, but the magnitude seems to be greatly exaggerated by the resentful people. And the resenters claim that they exist even at schools which explicitly do not consider race or ethnicity in admissions.)</li>
<li>“47% of people pay no tax”. (More correctly, “no federal income tax”, but they pay other taxes like the regressive payroll tax, sales taxes, etc…)</li>
</ul>
<p>Meanwhile, people see themselves as the victims of something. For example, many think they pay some percentage of their income to income taxes, but they exaggerate the percentage by looking at their marginal tax bracket, not their average tax rate, which is typically much lower (due to deductions from their income, and the fact that part of their taxable income is taxed at the lower rates; Mitt Romney’s income is in the 35% rate bracket, but he actually paid about 14% of his income in income tax (and will probably file an amended return to bring it down to 10%)).</p>
<p>Not to mention, even if it was “mommy and daddy’s” money that contributed to the Senior class gift, they are thereby paying again to help others on FA. Another reason not to sneer.</p>
<p>I would be surprised if any Dartmouth Seniors, whether attending on <em>daddy’s</em> dime or not, have never held a job and do not have money of their own.</p>
<p>Not sure what you are referring to as “other means of production”. Payroll taxes are levied on earned income, as opposed to dividend or interest income.</p>
<p>Also not sure why you think payroll taxes are regressive. Stay-at-home spouses collect benefits, even if they haven’t paid a penny of payroll taxes. Rich people who don’t have earned income, who do not pay payroll taxes, are not eligible to receive benefits.</p>
<p>Since cash is fungible, if they weren’t living off of Daddy’s dime for tuition and R&B, they would have no money, correct? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The purpose is not relevant to the point which is that it is not their money that the seniors are giving away. But by making this response, do you then agree with my premise – that the wealthier families can and do give more than non-wealthy families. And thus, I think it logically follows that colleges with a lot of low income students – and 33% Pell grantees is a lot – will receive fewer donations. (Others may disagree.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No sneer intended.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that factually incorrect? Would you prefer “parent(s)” (and “grandparent(s)”)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure what your definition of “many” is…but regardless, the fact is that such students do not make enough in the summer or off-term to pay tuition and room and board, or are you suggesting that they do they pull down ~$60k in 10 weeks? :)</p>
<p>christdk posted: Most people work hard and make sacrifices to earn more money so that they can have a “better” life, e.g., acquire more or better things/services etc. When an upper middle class person decides that they cannot afford x (a particular college or whatever) they certainly do not want to see people who earn significantly less to be given x without making some sacrifice. It’s really not more complicated than that."</p>
<p>Many students receiving financial aid DO sacrfice. The monetary amount may seem piddling in comparison to the dollar amount spent by higher income people, but the percentage of income/assests may be much higher. For example, when I was putting myself through grad school with some help from a private scholarship, I never ate a single meal from Friday afternoon when the school dining hall closed, until it opened again on Monday morning. I simply could not afford to feed myself because every penny went into school expenses.</p>
<p>“BTW - congrats to your daughter but she’s not paying for grad school if she’s received a grant. The government is paying for it. Taxpayers may consider that a worthwhile investment or not, e.g., masters degree in the history of basket weaving. If you are the one paying then it’s your decision whether to spend the money or not. If someone else is paying then it is their decision whether the money is being used wisely.”</p>
<p>Said daughter received an Obamacare grant toward her Masters in Physician Assistant. It is meant to address the shortage of primary care medical providers. The three recipients in her school are all lower income - those who can afford to foot the bill for tuition did not apply, because they don’t wnt to adhere to the requirements. In order to receive this help, she will be required to serve in a primary care field in an underserved area, and will earn about 1/3 less every year than she would have if she’d stayed in her favorite specialty of emergency medicine, or chosen some other specialty. So she IS making a sacrifice, but probably not in the eyes of many.</p>
<p>According to the notion of many on this board, she should have not gotten into the program at all, in order to make room for someone who was full pay.</p>
<p>Huh? No, I don’t think that is correct. They would be living off their work earnings, or their college scholarship/FA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe, but I wasn’t talking about donations by current students (you brought that up), I was talking about FA alums giving back at some point in their lives. Most grads (that I know of) are independent at least a couple of years out of college, so I don’t see why a former full-pay student would be expected to have more money to give than a former Pell-grant recipient. The former full-pay student might be in a much worse financial predicament if he took out a lot of private loan money to go to college.</p>
<p>Some certainly have, some are living on affluence passed down from **their **mommies and daddies :)</p>
<p>—going off topic—</p>
<p>KKmama - very interested in hearing more about your D’s PA program. It seems like a good possibility for my D, who is still in HS. We’ve looked at a couple of programs together. Colleges that offer it, especially as a 3/2 (finish in 5 years) major, seem to be growing. Do you mind if i ask where she goes? PM me if you rather?</p>