<p>
[quote]
What is the working definition of 'middle class' in the context of this thread?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I appreciate you asking that question. I rather suspect that anyone who receives an offer of NO need-based financial aid at all from a highly endowed college is best described not as "middle class," but as "upper class."</p>
<p>"I appreciate you asking that question. I rather suspect that anyone who receives an offer of NO need-based financial aid at all from a highly endowed college is best described not as "middle class," but as "upper class."</p>
<p>As usual, I take exception to that term. Being white trash and upper income, myself. I prefer the term "middle income" or "upper income" rather than class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I prefer the term "middle income" or "upper income" rather than class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with you. I was adopting the terminology of the thread title in my last reply, but I'll try to keep that in mind.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
As usual, I take exception to that term. Being white trash and upper income, myself. I prefer the term "middle income" or "upper income" rather than class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL. Great distinction!</p>
<p>Doktorvater - </p>
<p>Post #400 made me laugh - I do have a sense of humor. About item #6 - I think you have to be from PA for that to apply - LOL.</p>
<p>I do get it - really. Next year I will have 3 - yes THREE in college, making far less than six figures and not a lot of assets.
My kids do qualify for FA but there is always that nasty "gap" and even the EFC is a challenge.
Meanwhile - a "blended" family sends their kids to college. His kids use their mother as custodial - Dad's much HIGHER income doesn't count since they go to FAFSA schools - she is a single mom and the kids EFC is near zero. So they are getting federal grants. Dad agrees to pick up what the financial aid doesn't pay and the kids don't have to borrow. What really burns me is that SHE (the Step-mother) complains that her kids are going to get screwed since she is the custodial parent and they both work. Oh my.</p>
<p>(BTW - if one spouse has a low income - get divorced, make sure the low income spouse is the custodial parent, and make the kids apply only to FAFSA schools)</p>
<p>So yep there always seems to be a way around it all - I, like you, just haven't found it yet.</p>
<p>BTW - Your daughter has some terriffic opportunites at some really fine schools. Kids like that seem to bloom whereever they are planted. Yours will too.</p>
<p>JustAMomofFour, you make a very good point. I know of several kids whose parents are divorced, the mother has custody and low income, while the father rakes in big bucks. Of course they applied to FAFSA-only schools and got loads of grants. I would say they are gaming the system, except for the fact that the system is set up this way and provides a clear path of generous FA to these kids. Is it fair? No. The middle class gets screwed again.</p>
<p>I didn't even begin to read this entire thread, but to the OP, some don't lie on FAFSA, nor are spend thrifts. Sometimes, even the best laid plans go awry, especially when a medical situation is involved. And some of our children are extremely grateful to have elite schools offer need based aid. But then again, our children received admission by hard work. It's especially difficult when the public schools in our area are sub standard, there is no money for SAT tutoring and such, etc.</p>
<p>Well if pops is making big bucks then he's probably paying big bucks in child support depending on the enforcement and divorce decree. would the people who are complaining about being screwed want to trade places with those kids from pell grant families or divorced ones to get better FA? I'm sure most people don't make those choices with FA options in mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>momray, those are good points . I hope they read and understand. But they won't. It doesn't fit their "money people =good, no money people =bad" or their "I made it, why didn't you?" smugness.</p>
<p>I'm certainly not happy that we don't get need based aid while others (that appear to have more income/assets and live an extravegant lifestyle) say that they got tons of aid... they had the $$ to pay accountants to tell them not to save in their child's name (I discovered cc way too late in the game) and to invest in life insurance policies and annuities that aren't "assets" for FA purposes. </p>
<p>However, I wouldn't be willing to trade places with someone who's child got a full ride to their dream school but can't afford to pay their mortgage or provide medical insurance for their family.</p>
<p>"momray, those are good points . I hope they read and understand. But they won't. It doesn't fit their "money people =good, no money people =bad" or their "I made it, why didn't you?" smugness."</p>
<p>Curm, with the exception of the teeth-gnashing "sneaker" post, can you point me to what you're talking about? You know I have the greatest respect for you, but I'm just not seeing what you are from the vast majority of posters. As I said, maybe I'm just dumb, but the railing I've seen has been against (a) the system and (b) cheats. There seems to be a bandwagon mentality here and some assumptions, for example that some of us should get to know poor people. Many of us do. I guess what I'm saying is that there are some truly egregious posts that deserve to be called out, but those are the exception. There are, however, more posts that simply disagree or have been to my mind intentionally misrepresented. I just don't get the reason for the hand-wringing and mouth-foaming from some on three related threads. For the record, here's where I stand on the issue so there can be no confusion: My child(ren) hung the moon. Therefore, each is deserving of full scholarships to every college in America, along with transportation by limousine. And manicures.</p>
<p>When I'm living in reality, we have made the choice to work our butts off to pay the tuition at our kids' colleges and are humbled and grateful to be able to do so. We feel fortunate that D1's college wanted her enough to make it affordable. We do not take that as an entitlement. Coming from where we have, the fact of actually having a child in college is pinch-worthy. I don't expect anything handed to me and wouldn't choose to spend the amount of time and money volunteering with people less fortunate than I so that I could begrudge them opportunities, but I do see things that are unfair and make me angry sometimes. On a personal level it makes me crazed to have posters (particularly those well-educated folks that would never give my husband or me the time of day in real life) sneer at me because I have a higher income because just like others could choose state schools, so could they choose to work second and third jobs. Not everyone who makes good money does so by stepping on others or has a money tree in the backyard. I think it's wonderful that there is money available people who need it, but it's human nature for heaven's sake to say "ok, where's mine," especially when you're paying the taxes. Doesn't make you evil, just honest. Again, it's the actions one takes, not the words on a message board. But I did find the sneaker post deeply offensive.</p>
<p>But I did find the sneaker post deeply offensive.</p>
<p>That one, the "all need aid should be loans" folks, the posts supporting those positions, a few more I 'll have to go back and check for the specifics - those are the ones that set my hair on fire. As you know better than most, I am a harsh critic of what FA does to middle class folks who don't/won't cheat. I champion and support OUR cause. I also stand up every time for merit aid against the "all aid should be need aid" folks. I've stood there recently. See cellardweller's posts. I have made it clear that with our broken FA system (that is hideously unfair to the middleclass) , merit aid is OUR only way out (if our kids are best served by not going to a large state school). </p>
<p>Now bay is hammering me for accepting merit aid for my kid on that entitlement thread. I'm just a popular guy. LOL.</p>
<p>Regarding the rearranging of assets for benefits, I have some advance planning for the OP. Make sure that down the road you give all you assets to your children (or a trust or whatever the vehicle is) a few years before you think you may have big medical bills, so that way you can go on Medicaid, and your assets will be protected and the taxpayers can pick up your uninsured costs. I would never have allowed my mother to do this (my father died young), but it is legal. She would have been ashamed.... Of course there are always those that are not shamed by anything (legal or not). Also perhaps one of the posters above really hit the nail on the head, about grandparents footing the lifestyle. If I think about it, I also know a few people who live way beyond what their incomes could provide, and that is the only explanation. I guess one day they will inherit money, but for know the colleges don't take that into account.</p>
<p>"That one, the "all need aid should be loans" </p>
<p>I don't personally agree with this, but I can see the case for it in the context of paying it forward. Like, we'll give you XXX dollars and you either give back XXX dollars over XXX years or XXX hours over XXX years. I don't necessarily think this has to be an attack on the poor, though.</p>
<p>zmom, a school teacher, Peace Corps volunteer, aids counselor can't pay back $250K. They respond- she can go to cc or state school. She doesn't get to go to our best schools beacuse her parents suck at making/saving money. I find that pretty damning evidence that they are indeed "attacking" the poor. What right do they have to tell the kid they can't go to HYP if HYP says come on in? It's crazy talk. I think many just want the spot open for their kid. Some are just mean. ;)</p>
<p>"zmom, a school teacher, Peace Corps volunteer, aids counselor can't pay back $250K"</p>
<p>No, of course not. Like I said, I don't agree, but I don't think of it as an attack on the poor. Maybe there's a back story I don't get. If Zoosersister gets into a really good school, I expect to have to pay for it, take loans, do without, in order to make it possible because we aren't poor but we certainly can't pay. If we choose for her to go there and take on huge debt, that's on us, right? And she wants to be a curator, so there'll never be money. Why do my kids hate money?</p>
<p>It denies them the opportunity to attend that school that actively recruits them for that school's own purposes all to save a seat for somebody else's kid. Somebody who CAN afford it. Somebody's kid if that somebody is not poor. It is that denial of the opportunity that is hateful. The idea that donors can't donate the money to give a hand up to help who they want to is just against everything I believe in. Help high SAT scorers? Fine. I think it's odd but ....Help redheaded kids? Fine. I think it's goofy but....Help twins more than any other brother and sister? I don't begin to understand that one....but hey, it's legal. As long as it doesn't violate some law I'm all for it.</p>
<p>Grandparents footing an extravagant lifestyle is very common in my town. Then once the favorable financial aid packages come through & the grandchildren graduate, the assets start to be moved to the parents. Thus qualifying the grandparents for the lovely subsidized senior housing in town for their golden years. (At rates that are about 10% of the market rents in our area.) Complete with weekly nursing visits, outings, and other perks provided by the taxpayer.</p>
<p>Whenever there is free money to be had, people who choose to work all the angles begin moving in for a piece of the pie. It does cause cynicism & resentment; how can it not? That is not what I'd call a "money people = good, no money people = bad" mindset. The vast majority of people want opportunities for all, but from a limited financil aid pot, they just hate to see the $$ flow to those for whom it was never really intended. </p>
<p>Back in the late 70s, (Jimmy Carter misery index years,) parents used to have their kids take out student loans at a tiny interest rate to finance all kinds of home repairs, vacations, family cars. Whatever. Certainly not what the loans were intended to cover! There is ALWAYS a way to work the system to suit one's own agenda.</p>
<p>SS, tighten the rules. Tighten the noose. Use my rope. Hire investigators. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Cheats cheat. That's what they do. Change the rules so that we catch them. (And I agree the GP model is the one I see all the time in divorce and child support court.).</p>
<p>"The idea that donors can't donate the money to give a hand up to help who they want to is just against everything I believe in. Help high SAT scorers? Fine. I think it's odd but ....Help redheaded kids? Fine. I think it's goofy but....Help twins more than any other brother and sister? I don't begin to understand that one....but hey, it's legal. As long as it doesn't violate some law I'm all for it."</p>
<p>Ok. I get what you're saying now. I'm a conservative and think people should do what they want with their money, so I do agree.</p>