<p>This is just an observation that I had, and I am wondering if anyone else has an opinion on this. I am not really sure what I think...</p>
<p>So I have grown up in a VERY wealthy suburb. I go to a school made up primarily of "sheltered rich white kids." This place, although I love it dearly, has filled my mind with many unrealistic ideas of how to live. However, my family has never been "rich." As my friends buy boats and second (or third) houses, my family always seems to be struggling to make ends meet. This was always a source of tremendous irritation for me. It just seemed so unfair, immersed in sea of seemingly unending riches, that I should be left out.
However, then senior year came. Everyone, for the first time, was worried about money. With such inflated college prices, even wealthy students seemed to take into consideration the cost. Some of my peers felt obligated to opt for cheaper schools right off the bat because they "would feel guilty" to make their parents pay for the more expensive schools. However, many applied to their dream schools anyhow. Some applied for financial aid "just in case" while others chose to face reality later. I, on the other hand, all of a sudden had much more freedom to apply wherever I wanted. After all, my parents wouldn't even be able to pay for the "cheep" schools without aid and thus, I knew I would get a lot of FA.
Decisions poured in two weeks ago, along with reality. For example, one of my friends was accepted to a very good local school. She had expected to get some financial aid because her family is very large and she is just the first of six siblings to enter college. There was no way that her family could pay the full $40,000 for four years and have money left for her younger siblings. Yes, she has always seemed to me a very privileged, but this was unrealistic. Yet, she received NO financial aid and was left with a choice between making her parents pay $160,000 for her education or $40,000. She chose to leave money for her beloved siblings.
Another example. A brilliant friend of mine has done nothing my talk about Stanford for years. To her this was more than the title, there were very specific things that she was looking for in a school that only Stanford had. This was her dream. She has worked VERY hard to get into accepted, and she was. This friend didn't even apply for financial aid. There was no way she was getting any. She never even considered that money would be an issue. However, money is the issue. Her parents flat out told her that they are not going to pay all that money when she could have a perfectly decent education at a cheaper school. Another dream dashed.
I know more people who went through similar situations, turning down Duke, Notre Dame, and more for financial reasons. I don't really know what to think. For me, it has all worked in my advantage. I got a four great financial aid packages to four great schools. One of them in particular is pretty much amazing (that also happened to be my top choice of the schools I was admitted to). I started crying when I got the letter because it was like being given an education and a future. I am so thankful to have this opportunity. However, if my parents made some smarter financial decisions, the situation may be very different right now. I am not sure if this is the best or most fair system. But why am I complaining? </p>
<p>-She chose to leave money for her beloved siblings.</p>
<p>She could have taken loans and made her parents pay $20k a year?</p>
<p>-Her parents flat out told her that they are not going to pay all that money when she could have a perfectly decent education at a cheaper school. Another dream dashed.</p>
<p>Her parents are ***holes, but again, she could have taken some loans and asked for some help.</p>
<p>It AMAZES me that kids applied to schools their parents had no intention of paying for. Didn’t anyone talk about this? My kids applied to private and public schools with a very clear understanding of what we could afford. (Note: Not what we were “willing” to spend, what we flat-out could afford.) Two graduated from private and the third is attending a public. They also understood that they would share the burden of paying for school, and all three will have graduated with ~$15,000 debt, which we think is a reasonable amount.</p>
<p>Our suburb is similar to the one you mentioned, brightside, and we were also the one pinching more pennies.</p>
<p>Acceptances came in, and she saw her friends turning down schools due to money issues. We didn’t get a lot of financial aid (merit only), but we had promised her that she could go wherever she got in. When we kept our promise, I said to her, “Now you know why we never went on that Mediterranean cruise, don’t have a vacation house, and spent most of our vacations with relatives.” She understood.</p>
<p>I think that your friends are good kids. The one who made the tough decision on the cheaper school has a good head on her shoulders and is practical, she will go far in life.</p>
<p>The girl who got into Stanford should have at least filled out the FAFSA, it is a requirement for most schools if you are even just wanting scholarships. Basically it shows interest. It was shortsighted of her to think that her parents would be happy to foot the entire bill for Stanford. I am not saying she is a bad person but it would have been a nice gesture to do her part and apply for scholarships. I can assume that a student of the caliber that gets into Stanford would be a shoo in for some scholarships. Maybe her parents are seeing this as a sign of her lack of committment? Just guessing, I don’t know the whole story.</p>
<p>I have found that it is in your best interests not to even discuss FA and your good fortune with it with your friends. It causes a lot of tension in the end and resentment and the last month of your senior year should be as drama free as possible.</p>
<p>My guess is this is occuring in many neighborhoods across the country. A lot of parents bought a bigger house or a second house or a boat or took dream vacations every year or whatever instead of saving for college. A lot of parents had no idea how much college costs have increased until very recently because they never looked into it.</p>
<p>To be perfectly truthful, I find it irritating that the public college system is effectively subsidizing the education of upper middle class kids whose parents didn’t want to save money to educate them.</p>
<p>Federal college loans are funded by the income taxes of those upper middle class parents, so they are subsidizing the kids of those who pay less or no income tax. Also, depending on how the state funds its public colleges, they are also subsidizing the public college education in that manner.</p>
<p>What is the solution to 1990Dad’s irritation? Upper middle class students should not be allowed in their state public colleges because they should go to private colleges and pay for it, so more spots will be available for lower income kids?</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong, brightside, but it seems like the title of your post is your way of saying that bright kids who live in good towns but are some of the least well-off in those towns are now finding that, because of financial aid, they have MORE options than better-off kids in the same town.</p>
<p>I agree 100%. For kids in that situation who got into one or more of the colleges with top-tier FA (I am lucky enough to be one of them), it’s exhilarating to be given a chance, while at the same time saddening to see friends hurt <em>because</em> of their family’s success/wealth but unwillingness to pay through the nose. I look forward to a day when all colleges, obviously starting slowly with the most wealthy, become entirely free and operate off of their endowment. I read in the Wall Street Journal that Harvard may be set to do that as early as the coming decade.</p>
<p>1990dad’s comment is clearly from the very limited perspective of parents comparing themselves to other parents. As fun as that may be, many students are grateful that colleges have gone beyond that to actually include /us/ in their decisions.</p>
<p>Actually funds for federal loans are provided by private lenders and backed by the government. The student loan business is at least as much a subsidy to private lenders as it is to students. And at least in my state (Texas), public schools are mostly subsidized by endowments and, in particular, huge land grants.</p>
<p>But I agree that it’s a very complicated issue. I am certainly not advocating that state colleges be restricted to low income students or even that they be given priority. And in general, I think state and federal governments should spend more on education, not less. But we should all realize that one of the main reasons state schools are cheaper is that the state provides a substantial subsidy for its residents’ education. The most recent numbers I’ve seen for Texas are that only about 1/3 of the actual cost of attending is covered by students. Is it really fair/does it make sense to provide that subsidy to wealthy families?</p>
<p>J’adoube, I already read it and 1. I am in 0 debt.. I’m a transfer student right now so when I’m done with my undergrad at a private university it’ll be like I had gone to my state school for 4 years. I am also not to worried about the debt because when I get out I’m going to be making around 300k a year.</p>
<p>Is it fair/sensical that all Texas resident students receive the same State college subsidy? </p>
<p>Well, Texas seems to view public education as requiring equal treatment of the student w/o reference to wealth. In the primary and secondary education context in Texas, the ad valorum taxes that are designated to fund public schools are redistributed to make state money for expenditures per student approach equality throughout the state (or that is the espoused goal). </p>
<p>If equality of educational opportunity using state funds without reference to the wealth of the student’s family is fair and sensical at the primary and secondary school level, what makes inequality fair/sensical at the higher education level? </p>
<p>My husband occasionally carpools with this guy who is a director of a small company that provides student loans. He said there is someone on his book that borrows $540K for 3 kids at Stanford.</p>
<p>YESYESYESYESYES That subsidy is fair and NECESSARY. for people whose parents refuse to contribute, or whose parents are fiscally irresponsible, but rich, State schools provide an amazing option! Especially when merit scholarships are unavailable or when a student does not qualify. State schools are great because they are relatively affordable to everyone. Without this opportunity, people whose families are at higher income brackets (btw, not me, but I feel strongly about this matter) but can not afford a private school because their parents are irresponsible, unwilling, or there are some other weird circumstances, would hardly even have an option for colleges, unless they qualified for merit money.</p>
<p>anyone who has 2 vacation houses plus a house in an expensive suburb would have enough money, even without saving, to afford any college. At that point, it is a question of whether the parents care enough about education to spend their money that way.</p>
<p>“state schools are relatively affordable to everyone”</p>
<p>not true for Penn STate. Huge increases in price and virtually
no increase in aid has left the main campus inaccessible to
most lower income and working class students. It has become
state subsidized higher ed for the upper classes, as 1990dad
has suggested. Yet here in pa we all pay the same percent
of our income to the state, but the top of the line resources
are reserved for the wealthy. Kind of a reverse AA. Had the
op not been so successful in her college search she may hace
wanted to attend a flagship, say Penn STate. That probably
would not have been possible and then she’d see her less
qualified but wealthier friends going off to state college.</p>
<p>Access to the state flagships should be based primarily on merit
not on income. Access matters as well as acceptance.</p>