<h1>39. I think OP is not happy about those who sipped champagne and sent their kid to elite school for far less.</h1>
<p>BTW, this topic has been discussed Nth time now. At the end of the day, if you save, you are SURE that you could send your kid to college. If you don't, then you might be lucky or you might not.</p>
<p>"Agree with Garland. Being poor works for college financial aid purposes, but it sucks for the rest of the time!"</p>
<p>Correction: Being poor is a great deal for financial aid purposes at only a few few colleges, and those are the most competitive in the country.</p>
<p>At most colleges, low income students can't afford to attend them because the colleges gap their aid big time (and poor students don't have rich grandparents to help fill the gap. Indeed, low income students may be working to help support their parents, grandparents and siblings. When I taught at a public university, I knew students who were doing exactly that), provide extremely loan-heavy packages or reject the students because of high need.</p>
<p>The colleges that most low income students have the academic background to gain accepted to are community colleges and low ranked colleges with small endowments. The reason that low income students don't have stronger scores is that they tend to attend very weak public schools (since schools are primarily supported by property taxes) and often have uneducated parents who have little time and academic background to compensate for the weak schools their kids are in.</p>
<p>The state universities that many CC people complain about their kids having to attend are dream schools for even most smart, high achieving low income students.</p>
<p>"f you save, you are SURE that you could send your kid to college. If you don't, then you might be lucky or you might not."</p>
<p>^^ Yes, and if you're poor, a distant Ivy may or may not be a wise idea, if you are admitted & aided. You will be limited in your transportation options home, despite that aid. Those are considered "personal expenses" for which no grants are provided & are strictly out-of-pocket (loaned or directly out-of-pocket, regardless of the institution.)</p>
<p>There's plenty of unfairness to go around to all segments of the population, in case the OP is worried about that.</p>
<p>This thread cracks me up. What Doktorvater said in the op is true.</p>
<p>If you take two families of similar middle or upper middle backgrounds, and one family spends all the money that is earned, and the other saves money, the family that spends all the money will get more aid than the family that saves.</p>
<p>The family that saves will be expected to use some of that savings to pay for school. The family that didn't save, but could have, gets to keep what they bought, plus now gets aid.</p>
<p>Is that fair?</p>
<p>Maybe if the spendthrifts were forced to sell their belongings
before they received any aid, this concept would become clearer.</p>
<p>The trashing of the OP is nonsense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, and if you're poor, a distant Ivy may or may not be a wise idea, if you are admitted & aided. You will be limited in your transportation options home
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only if you refuse to get a summer job or work part time.</p>
<p>Really, FA is "unfair" to many people, but only if you look at an elite college education as an entitlement. It is not. The part that does not jive, however, is that if an elite education is not an entitlement, then why do some people get to go for free, and others who must pay the full fare are scolded for not saving enough? (And really, who on this board honestly knew 18 years ago that tuition would be $48,000 per year?)</p>
<p>The family that "spent all their money" may "qualify" for more financial aid but it doesn't mean they are going to get much more. </p>
<p>Seriously, if you have two families with annual incomes of $150,000 it doesn't matter much if they saved or spent - they still aren't getting much financial aid.
There are many factors involved - older parents have a lower efc, families with more children have a lower efc.</p>
<p>The family that didn't save and could have saved - is not going to be better off.</p>
<p>The family that spends more is going to get more aid if more aid is available.</p>
<p>Why should they get more aid?</p>
<p>Post 45:
No! That summer job, or jobs, plural, goes additionally to your "student contribution." If you don't meet it, you may be given a loan to make up for that part of it.</p>
<p>And "refuse?" Again, with the stereotyping. Prior to getting some experience via internships & the like, (& even after that), it is often hard to qualify for summer-only employment. Lots of students lie, & claim they are 'permanent' employees. My children are more honest than that. Therefore, their summer job offers are fewer, & usually amount to overtly temp (office) jobs, which are not continuous for the summer, thereby further limiting their earnings.</p>
<p>And before matriculation, many students are still 17, further limiting their employment options, for most jobs really do require you to be 18+ to be hired. There are much fewer options for the <18 student.</p>
<p>No one's scolding anyone. The OP came to CC & complained about poor people supposedly getting a grand advantage for f.a.. (Along with their supposedly other grand advantages, maybe? Like the grand advantages to register for 1:1 SAT Prep, which they can't afford? Right. Just checking.):rolleyes:</p>
<p>Exactly, owlice - what was the point of saving the money if you didn't plan on spending it for college?</p>
<p>I guess I can understand the pain of having to shell out the big bucks for college, but the resentment and anger are a little sad. My H and I also saved for D's college education; we started early and saved monthly. (We do the same for retirement.) We're still living in our starter home, and we aren't big spenders. As a result of our savings and D's scholarship (at a school far below the OP's standards, probably), D will graduate without any debt.</p>
<p>I read a lot of complaints about unfairness and a lot of threads about parental sacrifice. Maybe H and I are just weird losers, but it doesn't bother me a bit that "other" people could be gaming the system and thereby paying less money than we are. So what? We don't like debt and we've we always assumed that we'd never get aid so we saved. It didn't really feel like a sacrifice because it's what we wanted to do.</p>
<p>Like I said, we're just weird. I understand the sentiment and can sympathize with those who feel wronged by "the system", but the bitterness just isn't part of my own DNA. </p>
<p>And I save like mad for retirement because I also assume that social security won't be around, either. Call me weird AND pessimistic.</p>
<p>Post 47 is wrong. Post 46 is correct.</p>
<p>Really? </p>
<p>I don't think so.</p>
<p>The schools say what I say.</p>
<p>It's not a secret. ;)</p>
<p>"The family that didn't save and could have saved - is not going to be better off."</p>
<p>Maybe. They may have chosen not to save when their incomes were lower and their costs (for raising kids) higher; now they can pay for college through future earnings (likely higher than they were earlier) and in discounted dollars over time, through home equity or PLUS loans, to be paid off AFTER the kids graduate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And before matriculation, many students are still 17, further limiting their employment options, for most jobs really do require you to be 18+ to be hired. There are much fewer options for the <18 student.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, but what??? My 17-yr-old D worked in a retail store in the summer selling clothes for less than $10/hour and made more than enough to pay for her coast-to-coast plane ticket over Christmas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The family that spends more is going to get more aid if more aid is available.</p>
<p>Why should they get more aid?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only in the sense that the family that saves is expected to have part of that savings go toward college costs - increasing their EFC.</p>
<p>A lot of the "elite privates" have been price gouging for years. The rate of tuition increases have been twice the rate of inflation. Plus, they haven't been spending their endowment. That is the real reason why congress started looking into these schools, and also why HYP etc suddenly started offering free tuition to the middle class. </p>
<p>So I do have sympathy for the original poster. The tuition charges of these elite schools have gotten ridiculously high, and it is a shame that middle class families go thousands of dollars into debt. As parents we all want the best for our children, especially if they are hard working and intellligent. So to have to turn down an offer to attend an elite school based upon no offer of financial aid must hurt, especially if others get a full ride.</p>
<p>"The family that spends more is going to get more aid if more aid is available.</p>
<p>Why should they get more aid?" </p>
<p>"Only in the sense that the family that saves is expected to have part of that savings go toward college costs - increasing their EFC."</p>
<p>Uhhhh.....that's the point. :)</p>
<h1>55 post - My sentiments exactly which you stated very articulately. Thank you.</h1>
<p>If you have so much contempt for these schools--easy answer: don't send your kids there. I don't share this contempt, but if I did, I sure wouldn't spend my bucks there. Go to some cheaper non-"price-gouging" school. End of problem.</p>
<p>Again, no! You can choose one or the other -- loaned money for the portion of your tuition plan, via summer savings, or loaned money for the portion of your transportation. You really don't know what you're talking about unless you are a full-aid student. It is not just "yours" to do with what you will (cream off the top). You are expected to contribute to your actual education, period, via a particular element of your entire f.a. package called 'summer savings.' Goody for your 17-yr-old. Mine tried the same, & was denied BASED ON AGE. Different retail stores have different policies. MOST OF THEM -- the ones listing job openings -- have required an age of 18 when my children have looked.</p>
<p>Again, post 47 is inaccurate. It is only true if those expenses can be documented as not offsetting aid. Very few expenses are untouchable. </p>
<p>Lots & lots of ignorance here.</p>
<p>Sounds like a lot of sour grapes here that others get the "benefit" of aid, along with the questionable "benefit" of being poor.</p>
<p>When you fill out financial aid forms, are you asked about all the cars you have ever bought in the last 20 years, all the vacations you have taken, the clothes you bought, televisions, the swimming pool you put in your backyard, etc.?</p>