<p>
Not all of them. My d’s school is a “direct lender”, which means that the funds come directly from the Department of Education; no private lender necessary.</p>
<p>I don’t know everyone’s exact financial situation from where I live. Also, I am not saying that all the parents here are telling their kids to go to cheaper schools. However, even in very well off family, students feel bad about giving their family a $40,000 bill each year. Furthermore, some well off families had plans to save for college in stocks but as the stock market drops, they feel worried about spending so much on college. I think my Stanford friend had some plans such as these that were ruined by the economy, putting money in to perspective for her whole family. As the economy goes sour, is it really worth it to spend that much on an education when a public school will offer a good education as well? Is $30,000 more a year worth it to go to a “dream school”? After all, it is not so much where you go to school but what you do when you are at school. Also, no one knows what the future holds anyhow: is may not be wise to spend the extra money when the economy struggles. </p>
<p>As for paying for school without parental aid, that is not an easy thing to do. I am not saying it is impossible, and I applaud those who do it. However, again they are faced with huge loans after college themselves. As my friend with the large family said “Leaving school with an $80,000 loan can break a person.” Common sense says it is more practical to go to the less expensive school in that case as well. Even “rich kids” know that they are not going to be living on their family money forever.</p>
<p>IMO, no student, rich or poor should graduate with zero debt. In a perfect world I suppose secondary education should be free to those students who have proven themselves stellar but in the real world I think it is more practical that no one should necessarily get a “free ride”. I think every student should have to contribute monetarily to their own education, either during the college years through work/study or after by paying off loans or work related loan relief.</p>
<p>Sorry, I can’t raise much sympathy for these affluent kids who aren’t used to being told, “No.” So they don’t get the fancy college. That’s not a tragedy. Time to learn you don’t always get what you want. Still don’t understand why they applied to college their parents weren’t going to pay for…</p>
<p>MomOf3Stars: I basically agree with you, though I feel that the question is more of “Every student should be expected to contribute substantially” rather than necessarily in the form of loans (I plan on working a lot during the school year and summer to hopefully prevent graduating with debt…). I have friends with low ECs who basically have full rides to need-based institutions, and though it is certainly not a good thing to have little money, I don’t understand how any student should be able to pay for less than ~$10,000 per year (± $3000), as I feel like making $2000/semester *2 semesters + $4000/summer = $8000 and making up the rest in loanss is not even that unreasonable of an estimate, for ANY student. Maybe I’ll feel differently when I’m in college trying to make that $2000/semester, but it seems like everyone should have to contribute…</p>
<p>At most college towns it’s a buyer’s market for employers during the school year. I don’t think it would be that easy to find a job that pays well unless it is thru the university and those might come in as part of your finaid package if you get one.</p>
<p>Jadoube, I would def say it depends on where you are going to school. For instance, I am pretty certain if my D had gone to NYU she could have gotten a job waiting tables making far more than WS would provide. That said in small college towns there are still malls, Applebees, and ofc, Walmart and those places are always hiring. Whether or not that pays more that WS I have no idea though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would very much prefer S graduate without debt. I don’t know whether he’ll do what’s needed to make that possible (get stellar grades, apply for scholarships starting now, work and save, etc.), but I’d love it if he had zero debt. I am willing to consider his hard work at saving, studies, and scholarships his contribution, rather than debt.</p>
<p>It’s been very interesting to see the tables turned in such a way, as I am very much in a similar boat.</p>
<p>I have grown up at times very poor (I’ve been on welfare, been fed and clothed by charity, the works), and it’s often been vexing to see others have what I have gone without. </p>
<p>However, now that college has come around, I am reaping the rewards of my financial situation. Between very substantial merit money and the maximum awards on federal and state aid, and not even yet accounting for at least a couple thousand in outside scholarships, I’m going to a very expensive private school, and graduating with very little prospective debt, while most of the kids who grew up with so much more than I had are going to state school.</p>
<p>As for the statement that no student, rich or poor, should graduate with zero debt, I disagree somewhat. I think really academically excellent students should at least, in some instances, have the ability to graduate debt-free because they’ve earned it through their hard work.</p>
<p>Owlice, I would also love to see my D graduate debt free. I guess I should have chosen my words a little more carefully. If a student earns scholarships through applying, works to pay college bills, that is a contribution the student makes to his education ofc. I am just not sure I believe in the “free ride”. That said I would not let my D turn down a free ride either!! I just feel that in order to appreciate an education’s monetary value the student should have to do something to help, I am not an expert by any means. Yes, your child worked hard to get into the school of his choice but so did my child and every child that got into that school and thousands of others. Are they all any less deserving? So to say that some should graduate without any financial contribution from the student is kind of a hard thing. It is just a crazy mixed up thing anyway, it is giving me a headache.</p>
<p>Julie the only problem with your theory on academically gifted students is that a lot of highly gifted students, top notch come from wealthy families who could pay for Latin classes, expensive SAT Prep, things that give the kids the edge in school and on standardized testing. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen were rumored to be extremely gifted academically, would you like to see them get full scholarships to Stanford even though they can pay?</p>
<p>Oh, well, I definitely think that financial need should play a part in that assumption, absolutely. I don’t think that an academically excellent student should get a full ride everywhere, but I do think that their efforts should give them some substantial merit aid if not full rides at institutions that are less selective.</p>
<p>I also definitely realize that money is an academic advantage, too. I don’t know, I guess I don’t have an extremely clear picture on this. I suppose the reality is that achievement should be looked at in context of situation.</p>
<p>“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>Please tell all of us what type of job a 22/23 year old can do that pays $300,000/year. Pro athlete? Most don’t graduate these days.</p>
<p>Yeah, I used to think a lot of things when I was in college … then life happened.</p>
<p>Please also let us know what source of income these parents have that allow them to purchase boats and multiple houses?</p>
<p>kelsmom - you ought to trademark that saying, it would make a great t-shirt or bumper sticker!</p>
<p>Mrego, that is a good question. My dad has some joking theory that one of my friend’s parents is in the Mafia (they are Italian) :). Realistically, I think that it is mostly business men and women who were in the right place at the right time. There are also a lot of engineering companies where I live so I think some of them do that. Honestly though, I have often wondered myself.</p>
<p>hyperJulie, that’s pretty much the situation my children have. They have have lived for most of their lives with educated, involved parents with very little money. The first time my son and I ever talked about colleges, he was in eighth grade and said that he had heard of a particular top tier school and wanted to go there. I sort of laughed, and then explained how much it cost, and what steps he’d have to take to end up there. All through high school, we’ve stayed on track about college and had an ongoing conversation about how we do without now, and how important it is to do well in school. We live in a very affluent area, and my children’s friends are for the most part more affluent. It makes me sad when I find out about other kids who have had more “advantages” all through school – expensive vacations, nice things, beautiful homes – having to turn down expensive schools because of the financial aid problems. On the other hand, I also remember sometimes those same kids being not very nice about having more money and advantages, too. </p>
<p>It’s a complex sort of thing, obviously.</p>
<p>“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>I don’t feel (too) sorry for myself, but that would be really irritating to sacrifice so much to go to school for so many years, take on so much debt, work so many hours, and pay nearly 100k in taxes (yeah, I know the implications of that, but it’s still half our family income, and a lot of money to boot), and then be told my kids couldn’t attend publicly funded schools. BTW, no boat, no second home, no fancy vacations ( okay, so we’ve been to Hawaii), and we did save.</p>
<p>“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>The public college system is NOT subsidizing upper middle class kids - after all, every year these familiies pay much more in taxes than lower income families. If Shrinkrap has been paying $ 100k in taxes, maybe his kids should get a discount - it seems they’ve funded more than their fair share !!</p>
<p>I thought the only ones who had 50% tax liability were foreign oil companies.
Bush and Cheney dont pay 50%, neither do Obama and the Clintons.</p>
<p>Perhaps a new accountant?</p>