<p>You can’t judge by salary unless you know someone’s expenses. One kid in an LD school in NY, $55,000. One kid in an Autism school: $80,000, if the DOE won’t reimburse. Medical bills. Saving for disabled child’s futures without parent, taking care of aging parents . . . there are so many reasons why people plow through money without buying yachts. Yes, there are those who live lavishly, but it’s possible to make $200K a year and feel quite strapped.</p>
<p>Yes, but those particular examples are the type of special circumstances that financial aid officers can definitely take into account – (high medical bills, expenses for care and education of a disabled sibling). So the family paying those types of bills might very well qualify for far more generous need-based aid than they had anticipated.</p>
<p>I think it gets more and more difficult to define “middle class”. In NYC a high school teacher Mom and a police officer Dad could average a combined income of 200K+. They also have a modest home valued at 800,000 (many residents have homes worth considerably more) and due to declining schools their children attend private schools (tuition approx. 23,000 a year as opposed to pricey 40,000 a year high schools in area). They own one modest car and the other takes the subway. Groceries (with coupons) for a family of four averages $300 a week. They don’t entertain, eat out, or go on fancy vacations. They just try to pay their bills and save a little for a “rainy day” and future college tuition. They constantly search for free activities for their children. With city funded jobs they will never have the 750K+ salaries of their peers. I know these people…sis and bro-in-law…and they hope in 6 short years that tuition assistance will be available!</p>
<p>In this thread - and some others - the same idea keeps surfacing. And it is rather disturbing. What is meant by “gaming the system” to get more financial aid - and how exactly is that supposed to work? I don’t think anything like that exists unless we are talking about out right lying on the FAFSA. Anyone care to enlighten me?</p>
<p>eerboco - your “middle class” family can afford a “middle class” college like CUNY. Where the disconnect occurs is “middle class” families thinking they should be able to afford absurdly priced private colleges, OOS publics, or other extravagances.</p>
<p>Kennedy2010, posters such as Momzie (post #14) appear to think that because I chose to become a full-time parent to my three children for 20 years rather than working outside the home, that I am somehow “gaming the system” because my family income was 1/2 that of a two-earner household for those 20 years. She is certainly entitled to her opinion, but I disagree. Other than that opinion that stay-at-home parents are gaming the system, I am not sure what they mean by “game the system.”</p>
<p>You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term “gaming the system”. It means working within the system to your best advantage, regardless of the impact on others, the system itself, or the “spirit” of the rules. This is not considered necessarily pejorative. </p>
<p>Many tax shelters are “gaming the system”, but they are not illegal and do not involve lying. An example would be buying a heavier car than you normally would in order to take advantage of the tax break for heavy vehicles.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification Bob. Your explanation makes lots of sense. However, in these posts that does not seem to be the spirit with which these comments are offered. There seems to be some animosity and the sense the other are “getting over” rather than working within the system.</p>
<p>I am not saying that my niece and nephew will not be considering or attending a CUNY school. I know that they may want to consider other schools based on their abilities as well. To attend these, they will need to take out loans and or get SOME assistance. I am the oldest of 6 children and my Mom stayed home and Dad had a city job. Two attended SUNY schools and the other 4 attended pricier private colleges through academic scholarships and student loans. One of those 4 attended Cooper Union tuition free. There is always a will and a way if determined enough. I think my only point is that colleges don’t just consider a dollar amount when giving aid. They also consider circumstances and cost per area. Not all 100K families are considered equal.</p>
<p>I’m middle class. “Due to declining schools” I always volunteered and donated modest amounts when I could to help improve the public schools my offspring attended. </p>
<p>I guess there is more than one type of “middle class”. I’m the kind of “middle class” for which paying for private education at the elementary and high school level is totally out of the question. And no, that really doesn’t mean that the best public schools are conveniently located in my neighborhood. To the contrary. </p>
<p>I don’t think its all that outrageous for the financial aid system to be built on the assumption that a family who can afford to pay $$$$$ every year for their children’s K-12 education can afford to throw in something more for college. </p>
<p>I realize that there are very good arguments to be made as to why the quality of education in early years is critical – but that’s a choice that the family is making. It is not something that puts them on par with their neighbors who earn $85,000 and send their kids to public school, crossing their fingers in the hopes that their kids will do well enough to be able to later win a spot at Stuyvesant. </p>
<p>No one is claiming that those higher earners are wealthy. But the point is that it life is a lot tougher for those of us with earnings in the $40-$60K range, and most of us do have to dig into whatever savings we have and borrow to send our kids to college. Full rides are not that easy to come by – so we end up with awards that are manageable but still require us to pay $X – where $X is a stretch.</p>
<p>I worked in financial aid at a public university that did its best to provide adequate need based aid to its poorest students. Some definitely-middle-class students were “not eligible for financial aid” … but they were, in that Stafford loans ARE financial aid … anyway, they were eligible for loans only. These were the students I felt bad for, because their families were not poor enough for Pell and other grants - but they really did not earn enough money to be able to pay $10,000 or so a year for tuition. Many of these students did go to community college for the first two years, but they still had two years of university to cover with nothing but loans. These are the middle class kids who are not getting aid (with my usual caveat that loans actually are aid - and of course, they couldn’t borrow the full amount they needed in Stafford loans, anyway).</p>
<p>“Gaming the system” includes NOT saving in advance for college. </p>
<p>If you are in that 200k income level, it does not make rational sense to scrimp today, when you will be penalized for it in your EFC tomorrow. You are better off parking the cash in the purchase of a second home.</p>
<p>There is nothing “fair” about anything involving financial aid.</p>
<p>Is it “fair” that in the time we went from college students to parents of college students, costs have increased at 3x the rate of inflation? The “1/3 from savings, 1/3 from current income, 1/3 from future income (a.k.a. loans)” mantra didn’t exist when we were kids.</p>
<p>Is it “fair” that families who make the selfish decision to have a stay-at-home parent or retire as their kids enter college are considered more needy?</p>
<p>Is it “fair” that families who make the equally selfish decision to go for two incomes wind up in a situation where virtually the entire take-home pay of the second earner is considered fair game to pay for college?</p>
<p>Is it “fair” that some people who choose careers where they will make 1/3 of what they could have if they had chosen differently, are considered more needy?</p>
<p>Is it “fair” that some people who decide to make less money to live in a place with a lower cost of living, are therefore deemed to be more needy?</p>
<p>Is it “fair” that voluntary retirement contributions are considered fair game, whereas involuntary contributions are not? Even when those involuntary contributions lead to pensions that are literally worth millions of dollars?</p>
<p>Is it “fair” that someone who bought a cheap house 30 years ago finds themselves penalized by schools that count house equity just because the live in a place where house values went up 20x? Even if they have no way to tap that equity?</p>
<p>Is it “fair” that people who own businesses have all sorts of ways to work the system that regular employees don’t?</p>
<p>It’s the system we have, though. There are no easy solutions.</p>
<p>“Democracy is the worst form of government… accept for all the others.” ← applies to the financial aid system as well, I think.</p>
<p>The high cost of college is amplifying the unfairness. It would be simpler to dispense with the HighCost/HighAid model and go back to the LowerCost/LowerAid model in the past. At least there is more transparency for families. </p>
<p>But I guess were not going back to the LowerCost/LowerAid model until colleges learn to control their spending problem.</p>
<p>The second home is an asset for financial aid purposes, treated just like money in the bank. </p>
<p>In any case, the primary determinant for financial aid is income, not assets. Only 5.6% of the value of assets, as most, goes into the FAFSA EFC calculation. First there’s an asset protection allowance. $100,000 in savings above the asset protection allowance - that’s +$5600 to the EFC.</p>
<p>Only in the crazy world of the CC “middle class” would anyone think that it worth disposing of $94,400 to avoid having to pay out $5600 the following year.</p>
The trick is to park it somewhere where it won’t be counted, but you get to keep it, such as paying down your mortgage, or certain insurance vehicles.</p>
<p>Or spend it on big-ticket items you are going to need anyway, such as a new roof or replacing a clunker.</p>
<p>If you have a business you can just “invest” it in your business, and crank your income down to nothing as well.</p>
<p>Since EFC is mainly income driven, it’s tough to get need based aid from even the most generous schools regardless of how creatively you hide your assets. Better to keep some of it to pay what you are going to be expected to pay. ;)</p>
<p>Yep…every year families do these financial gymnastics only to find out that their INCOME is too high anyway…and having less in assets really doesn’t affect their family contribution enough to qualify for need based aid.</p>