<p>Mini, is that a done deal?</p>
<p>mini, sorry but I am missing your point, humor, or whatever.</p>
<p>"Mini, is that a done deal?"</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>Congratulations to your daughter. I see that she got into one of her favorite schools.</p>
<p>No complaints, other than it is "unfair". I'm a big boy, I can take it. (Besides - she is going to be rich.)</p>
<p>When looking at the unfairness of financial aid, should we not stop and wonder what would happen if NONE existed, except for the PELL/SEOG and merit aid. Yes, none whatsoever ... the private colleges would be full fare and nobody gets a nickel beyond the governmental aid. </p>
<p>Do you think that removing the unfairness by eradicating the aid altogether would make YOUR individual situation any better? Would the OP be presented a lower bill because nobody else gets financial support? </p>
<p>Why are colleges viewed in a very different light from the K-12, for which parents who opt out of the public system have to foot the entire bill. Doesn't **this **unfairness only sting NOW because the real and complete bills for one's education were magically hidden for 90% of K-12 students?</p>
<p>So, at the end, there is only one question worth answering and that is, "Would MY situation be better if the elite schools eliminated all financial aid?" </p>
<p>Do **you **really think you'd get a penny more, especially considering that the sky high tuition already includes a substantial discount? </p>
<p>Do **you **really think that private schools should drop the basic concept of financial aid that EXPECTS the primary responsibility of a post-secondary education to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the beneficiary and his or her parents? Do you really think that a school should drop its requirement of your spending down 1/20 of the 300,000 and give you a grant as replacement?</p>
<p>Bay, this post is so relevant to how many of us who are middle class/upper middle class feel. A lot of it comes from all the hype we read on how we should not exclude the high priced private schools because there is a chance that our children will get some aid even if we are not in the "needy" bracket, but in the "it hurts to pay it" bracket. Though it is true that some in this category are pleasantly surprised with the creative accounting that PROFILE schools (or those that use their own forms), in most cases, it is a nasty slap across the face----how dare you apply for aid for all that money you make/have. Depending on the priority a family puts on their child's choice of college, being able to "afford" a school can run across a spectrum of household incomes and assets.</p>
<p>There are families that will sell it all, borrow it all, take from other members of the family, work themselves to the bone to send a child to a given college. It is their top priority for their student to go to a certain type of a school. There are other families that don't want to give up the vacations, eating out,freedom to purchase, neighborhood, school district. Most of us here on CC appear to be somewhere in between. We have to carefully weigh our priorities and make some tough decisions on what to give up, what chances to take, in order to pay for a very expensive experience for our child. It's easy to make the decision sometimes when it is, say, a medical issue that may be on the plate. But sometimes the issue is more complex. Spending savings for college may not be the wisest use of those funds. There may be a precarious situation on the horizon that would not be so damaging if there were funds to buffer consequences, funds that are not going to be there if they are used to pay for college. </p>
<p>I find it ironic that it is more of a financial purge for me to pay for a private college education for my child than it was for my father to do so for me. Though our family income is far higher than what his was, the ratio of cost of college to after tax income is far less favorable these days.</p>
<p>Xiggi, It seems to me that it really comes down to the government money and merit money for some schools. Merit is defined very, very loosely, it seems to me. How much the school wants you, determines merit in many situations. With PROFILE schools, the financial aid office can make its own rules as to who is deserving of merit money. It can also judge the financial picture on an individual basis. If the school really wants a kid, it just might accept a situation as need, when similar situations would not qualify. I have seen an amazing range of awards given both for need and merit reasons among a number of schools. Really, it comes down to how much the school wants you.</p>
<p>Yep, OP. We were in your position, 6 yons ago. We further went on to accummulate $70,000 in Federal guaranteed undergrad loans for S. Its now down to $60,000. The good part is that the average interest rate of these loans is 3.0% and give it another 16 months this average will drop to 2.7%. The better part is the taxpayer/banks/hedgefunds is picking up the difference between what we pay and 6.5%. Can we extinquish these loans today, yes, but why should we when banks are giving 3%+ for shortterm CD. </p>
<p>It is going to be worser before getting fairer. Wait until August and September when our "owners" realize that student loans are as toxic as subprime mortgages.</p>
<p>
[quote]
by elma
I wish someone would tell me, how do you save $160,000/child. We live a simple life -- no fancy vacations, economy cars, no swimming pools. We live in the Northeast and after income, property taxes (more than doubled in past 10 yrs), our portion for medical insurance premiums, retirement, and other expenses there is little left. We did aggressively save for college, but the total is nowhere near $160,000/child. Child #1 is attending a state school. Child #2 was excited to be accepted at a private university. The scholarship barely made a dent in the total cost. Most outside scholarships look at need. Our relatives are worrying about sending their own children to college.
[/quote]
And this $160k - $200k are after tax income. It more likely $250k - $300k before your tax earning.</p>
<p>No one mentioned that when colleges gave out the FA, they got tax deduction. The recieve side don't have to pay tax on tuition, books, fees parts. While parents like OP pay the full freight all out of pocket after tax money. ... Shall I say a triple screwed.</p>
<p>xiggi,</p>
<p>I don't think OP or anyone is advocating eliminating FA altogether. College is so expensive that people are just frustrated that for whatever reason they cannot easily afford it when the "formulas" tell them they can. IMO, colleges that can afford to lower tuition costs for everyone should do so. Am I the only one who thinks it is incongruous that it costs $48,000 to feed my 110 lb D, house her in a small unit with 4 others, and teach her for 6 hours per week for nine months? (And yes, I know, I don't have to send her there....)</p>
<p>Wedgewood: Clinton tried to do what you're saying (giving people the option of paying a portion of their income to pay for college). I believe it was called the Hope Scholarship Program? It failed miserably...people who knew they were gonna make the big bucks out of college (pre-meds, pre-laws, future executives) opted out and chose to pay normal tuition becasue it saved them money long-term. ($200,000 now vs. $1,000,000+ over a lifetime). People going into lower paying fields (teachers, social workers) opted in, and ultimately didn't pay enough into the system. </p>
<p>Its a lovely idea, but the economics just don't work out.</p>
<p>Let me ask you this: do you think it is worth $48K to send your d to her college? If not, why send her there when you have other options? If so, then if you are able to come up with the money.. then how would it be "unfair" for you to get what you pay for?</p>
<p>Last night I was with a group of people who started talking about all the places they had flown for free with their frequent flyer miles. I can't afford to travel a lot, so I've never accumulated enough flyer miles to go anywhere. So even though I have less money, I have to pay for seats on flights while they can fly for free. So is "unfair" that I have to actually pay for the plane ticket?</p>
<p>Last week I wanted to make reservations for a hotel when my son graduates from college. It turned out that the hotel offered a corporate rate that was a 20% discount off of the rack rate... but I didn't qualify for the corporate rate because I don't happen to be employed by a company that pays me a corporate salary. So... is it unfair that the hotel gives discounts to people who are undoubtedly richer than me?</p>
<p>I just can't see how it becomes "unfair" for one person to pay sticker price for a commodity, whether it is a plane ticket or a hotel room or a college education, simply because they offer some sort of discount to someone else.</p>
<p>What about pay certain % of income based on income braket? And money pay to the tuition, fee, books, (excluded room and boarding) tax free to every one.</p>
<p>xiggi,
thank you for your post 146.<br>
And it's hardly that I think that the f.a. picture is even close to ideal, or that it is not quite uneven, inconsistent, & can be very, very frustrating. But there are all varieties of unfairness in the whole educational experience from kindergarten on, many of these quite dependent on one's income, btw. I've stated often on CC that I think merit money should be more available from more colleges (and/or gov't-subsidized) for the middle class. I think in particular the echo boom is caught in a squeeze. It's not that there aren't a lot of great colleges out there, but in a few years, there will be even more great ones, geographically dispersed, because these will enjoy the overflow from the reaches to which they were not accepted. In the meantime, even the poor or "not rich" do not get their first, perfect choice of schools, including those to which they were admitted. They must come to terms with their available financial aid offers, & make peace with their own compromises.</p>
<p>It's just unfortunate that many people who should know better, perhaps on cc & some not, have a number of negative stereotypes & generalizations about poverty in general including as it relates to financial aid.</p>
<p>When I toured campuses, I saw where the money was going. State of the art athletic facilities, state of the art music facilities with computers that can be set to duplicate what it sounds like to play in Carnegie Hall, more Steinway pianos than I could count, food courts that look like they belong in the local mall, coffee shops that look like night clubs, movie theaters, beautiful student centers, new dorms that are much nicer than my first apartment was, etc. etc. I don't know about others, but I didn't have and didn't expect any of these things 30 years ago. We had a track around the football field and a candy counter in the student center - and a foosball table. I look around at colleges now and I wonder why the kids need all this "stuff." Colleges are competing by giving them more and more - we don't expect to pay for it?</p>
<p>I am curious as to what the history of FA is among the Ivies, etc. How long ago was it that most students were paying full fare? What do you think the yearly tuition would be if there were no FA at all, and everyone was paying full fare? What impact would that have on admissions, would the market still be there?</p>
<p>I am not advocating this, just curious if anyone has an idea of how it used to be and what it would look like if everyone was paying full price.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am curious as to what the history of FA is among the Ivies, etc. How long ago was it that most students were paying full fare?
[/quote]
Uhhhhhh... That would be all the way back to earlier today.;) Dartmouth still isn't down to half. 52% are full pay.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^
Okay, the vast majority versus most. </p>
<p>I don't know the history on this. I have a sense that in say, the 1950s, almost all of the students paid full price, with the exception of the rare scholarship student. Accurate, inaccurate? Enlighten me.</p>
<p>broetchen, the make up of the elite schools at that time was nothing like it is today. There was little diversity, socioeconomic, religious, or racial. Kids from Texas and south Georgia didn't dream about going there anymore than they dreamed about going to the moon. They were palaces of privilege and exclusivity. There was no application frenzy like today.</p>