<p>
</p>
<p>Well, first the good old saying, “Charity begins at home,” comes to mind.</p>
<p>I have recently said to several telecharitymarketers, “I have one in private school and one in college. When they are through with their schooling, we’ll be interested.”</p>
<p>To poetgrl: I know this isn’t related to the conversation at large, but I just have to say it. Charities that advertise on the phone are usually not charities. There’s a Veteran’s “charity” and another for fireman that typically advertise on the phone. They only give about 2% of their total collection to their programs. They really are rotten, and they trick a lot of good people. Just had to say it, sorry 
Here’s a link:
<a href=“Popular Charities | Charity Navigator”>Popular Charities | Charity Navigator; </p>
<p>To everyone who responded to my posts: thanks I really appreciate it.</p>
<p>OH, I know, eloudon. thanks. I like make a wish, even though they go by phone. One of the recent calls was actually from my alma mater. </p>
<p>We have a few places we donate money, mostly in the arts, and have done so at a pretty generous rate for a long time. But, ever since we endowed a chair at my alma mater and husband’s, we’ve been on the speed dial.</p>
<p>But, no, for most people that is a really important piece of information.</p>
<p>Good luck to you. You’re a good kid to be able to see beyond yourself to your mother’s feelings. I hope you enjoy school and get a lot of out of your undergrad experience.</p>
<p>Sorry but I completely disagree with the notion that charitable contributions (for high wage earners - like me apparently) should be cut back. I’m about as conservative as they come in any sense of that word – but I firmly believe that giving to those in need should not be sacrificed. If it comes down to us picking a different college for my D versus ending charitable giving, then she’s going to a different college.</p>
<p>As far as me simply trying to get the college to cover my charitable giving – nonsense. In fact this part of the conversation would have made more sense if we said that the college should tell me to cancel my internet/TV service, cell phones and cut back on retirement savings BEFORE we say that I should stop charitable giving.</p>
<p>When the college stops using imported mahogany as molding in its new administration building, stops hiring world-renowned architects to design its theater, stops giving the college president a free mansion to live in, stops buying crystal chandeliers for the dining hall – then we can talk about me not giving to Save the Children or World Vision.</p>
<p>Seriously…give me a break on this point.</p>
<p>In fact, take the charity off the table. I still think there’s a problem when someone like me making $150K/year who can’t afford the $50K or $60K tuition is told “too bad” when I know for a fact there are people sending their kids to this school making $500K, $1M, $2M per year and their expected tuition bill is exactly the same as mine.</p>
<p>Why is it that “needs based” redistribution of wealth happens exclusively within the lower and middle class?</p>
<p>In fact, take the charity off the table. I still think there’s a problem when someone like me making $150K/year who can’t afford the $50K or $60K tuition is told “too bad” when I know for a fact there are people sending their kids to this school making $500K, $1M, $2M per year and their expected tuition bill is exactly the same as mine.</p>
<p>Why is it that “needs based” redistribution of wealth happens exclusively within the lower and middle class?</p>
<p>===================================</p>
<p>Becuase the purpose of financial aid isnt supposed to be redistribution of wealth. It is supposed to help those who absolutely could not attend without it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excellent point. It used to be that the bank president made 4 times what the middle-income secretary made, now it’s about 200 times. There is not much money left over for good middle income jobs and those of us who have them, are definitely “squeezed” by such things as a disproportionate tax burden and student loans. I disagree that the highly compensated 2M plus bank executive have such amazing skills that the salary is “deserved.” </p>
<p>I also agree with the charitable giving. For me, it’s a responsibility.</p>
<p>I disagree that the highly compensated 2M plus bank executive have such amazing skills that the salary is "deserved</p>
<p>=================================</p>
<p>Thats a different point, and I agree. For all Obama’s SEC choices have done in at least demanding that shareholders have a fair vote on executive compensation, we might as well had a Republican president. But worse, imho, is these corporate compensation standards have worked down to colleges, who increase the top compensation, while relying more and more on hardworking graduate students and adjunts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I know, sorry for going off topic. It was my impression that the highly compensated tenured professor was being phased out. But, the OP makes a good point of yet another example of the middle class bearing a disproportionate amount of the financial burden.</p>
<p>GT, I didnt mean to be critical. I agree with your comment re compensation. The SEC does have a mandate to see that shareholders of public companies be protected, and they have failed. Miserably. I just dont see the mission of finanical aid to redistribute wealth. I see that as a political mission.</p>
<p>The cost of a college education is too high.</p>
<p>That said, the idea that it is “irresponsible” to stop charitible giving for four years in order to pay for your own child’s education, therefore leaving the money free to be spent on those who are truly needy being responsible, in and of itself, might be brought to bear on the situation.</p>
<p>If your child recieves this ten percent from the school, then that is the same amount of money their aid pool is diminished for families who make significatntly less than yours. So, that would seemingly be highly irresponsible, frankly. I mean, if the point of charitable giving is to assist those less fortunate than yourself.</p>
<p>So, yeah. It might make you “feel” better to see your charitable donations as giving while seeing financial aid you might recieve as something other than charity, but spending the same amount on charity you are RECIEVING in charity really isn’t giving, at all.</p>
<p>It is all about choices we make in life, isn’t it? There are people who send money back home to support their poor relatives, and that’s not taken in consideration when it comes to FA calculation. There are people with 10+ kids, people who live in high cost areas, people who decide to stay home to have more time with their kids/family…It is each person’s responsibility in funding higher education, free education stops at high school. If OP feels it’s her moral obligation in giving away 10% of their family income instead paying for their kid’s college education, I think that’s great, but it’s not a college’s obligation in subsidizing her believe.</p>
<p>* I still think there’s a problem when someone like me making $150K/year who can’t afford the $50K or $60K tuition is told “too bad” when I know for a fact there are people sending their kids to this school making $500K, $1M, $2M per year and their expected tuition bill is exactly the same as mine.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>??? So, what are you saying? are you saying that those with super earnings should pay $150k per year for their child, so they each can contribute $25k for 4 children like yours? There are at least 4 kids at the school with your income for every 1 kid with the super income (the ratio is probably even higher than 4 kids to 1 kid).</p>
<p>Private education is a choice. To have that choice, people should EXPECT to pay for it. If they get aid, that should be viewed as an undeserved gift. If people had that attitude, there’d be less people upset over their FA packages. It’s one thing to apply to pricey schools “just to see” what you might get, but to expect anything smacks of entitlement thinking.</p>
<p>Couldn’t agree with you more mom2collegekids! The op made choices like giving to charity (which is extremely commendable), but that was a choice! It sounds to me like whining. Loans are a fact of life and if they don’t want their daughter to have $32000 in loans they should just take out a HELOC of home equity loan–in the scheme of things, it’s not that much money.</p>
<p>It is all about choices for those who are lucky enough to make enough to have them. Many don’t. And for kids from such families, unless they are of the caliber that they can score enough financial aid and/or scholarships, their choices are limited. We, as a nation, do not want to pay for room and board for every kid who wants to go away for college and whose parents can’t pay, not to mention don’t want to pay.</p>
<p>We give to charities & we received financial aid at the same time. We don’t give a lot of money every year- but we have a lot of charities we support.</p>
<p>I have been involved backstage in various non-profits and while big donors are certainly needed, it makes more difference to them to have 1,000 donate $1 each than having 100 people donate $100 dollars.</p>
<p>Grant giving organizations want to know how many donors they have- not necessarily the dollar amount- & if you need to cut back the total while funding your own families needs, that seems appropriate.</p>
<p>Otherwise this is what you are doing- expecting to continue to choose to fund your private donations- but expecting the college to rework their own priorities by giving your family financial aid when by their calculations you didn’t qualify for need.</p>
<p>If it was up to me- I possibly wouldn’t even authorize Stafford loans for those students whose parents make 6 figures & I certainly would limit Perkins loans to people whose incomes were less than 6 figures.</p>
<p>But it isn’t up to me & that is probably a good thing.
;)</p>
<p>
This school is not a charity. It isn’t even a public service. It is a private institution. Just like BMW or Mercedes, except that presumably this school is a non-profit.</p>
<p>If you can’t afford the costs at your taxpayer-funded state university system, then you have a right to complain. But this school owes you nothing. If you don’t like what they ask you to pay, don’t pay it. If you think their spending is outrageous, don’t give them tuition dollars to support it.</p>
<p>Emerald Kitty: regarding loans</p>
<p>But is that fair to the children of the middle, upper middle class and even the vastly RICH?</p>
<p>By basing what a student is charged to attend college on what their parent’s income is, there is the unspoken assumption that a parent will actually agree to pay their EFC’s and beyond.</p>
<p>That is not at all true. What a parent contributes is totally up to their descretion and I have seen many upper middle class families turn their backs on their children when it comes to paying for higher education.</p>
<p>So how is it fair to charge that student more than another child (when the parent’s contribution may be equal) and then on top of it, take away their option of getting a loan?</p>
<p>Emerald kitty–Why-? re: "wouldn’t even authorize " stafford loansif it were up to you.</p>
<p>.??The government is probably making money from the interest rates on staffords, especially the unsubsidized loans</p>
<p>
Perfectly put by poetgirl.</p>
<p>The OP wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These are all among the economies many of us will have to consider during our children’s college years. How we implement those cutbacks, and how deeply we want to cut, will vary. The reason people lit upon the charitable giving, in the OP’s case, was that it seemed the question was how the $60K/year school could expect the OP’s family to pay $42K a year ($60K minus $10K scholarship and $8K loan). Of course, the answer is that they expect it based on whatever spin they put on the CSS profile. From the college’s perspective, it doesn’t matter whether the OP’s family spends $15K of disposable income on worthy charities or on candy and gum. Or whether the OP is willing to stomach loans (she/he isn’t). All they care about is how much discretionary income (based on their possibly off-base and, by definition, idiosyncratic formula) the OP’s family has. And this $15K is discretionary. No one is saying the OP should drop charitable giving (at least I’m not); instead, the point is that continuing at this level doesn’t appear to be compatible with choosing the highly expensive school, which the OP presented not only as the D’s first choice but, at least in the original post, as effectively the only acceptable choice.</p>