The middle class squeeze...

Paying for College
21

<p>Northstarmom-</p>

<p>What sorts of offers do you think 0 EFC families are getting from top public universities, if not generous offers of aid? If the 0 EFC families aren't getting the generous need-based offers, who is?</p>

<p>It's absurd to say that the poor don't get generous financial aid offers. I'm not talking about the lack of preparation by some that excludes them, or the family crises for others. Those are separate issues. I'm talking about aid packages based on EFC. And the most generous need-based aid offers go to the low EFC families. </p>

<p>I don't envy the poor for the fact that they get generous aid offers. That's just the way the system is designed to work.</p>

22

<p>Here are the financial aid stats from Berkeley, since I mentioned above that their tuition was about $6600 per year.</p>

<pre><code>* Number who were judged to have need: 1,994
* Number who were offered aid: 1,934
* Number who had full need met: 995

  • Average percent of need met: 90%
  • Average financial aid package: $16,460
  • Average need-based loan: $4,254
  • Average need-based scholarship or grant award: $12,021 </code></pre>

<p>Percent of total undergraduate aid awarded as:</p>

<pre><code>* Scholarships / grants: 67%
* Loans / jobs: 33%
</code></pre>

<p>They meet 90% of need (yes, that includes loans and work study), and gave full rides based on need to 995 kids. Average need-based grant is 12K-- that's average, so someone with a particularly low EFC would likely get more.</p>

<p>That's pretty generous aid in my book, and the most is going to the poorest families, the ones with the lowest EFC's.</p>

<p>Now, I know, not everyone can get into Berkely. But if you look at, say, UC Riverside, you'll find similar figures. Go to the Cal State colleges, where many choose to live at home and commute to save on room and board, and you'll see generous aid being given to the most needy.</p>

<p>There is LOTS of aid available to low income families. And that's OK with me.</p>

23

<p>I'm not talking about the lack of preparation by some that excludes them, or the family crises for others. Those are separate issues."</p>

<p>Thank you. Finally, someone picks up on this, while eveyone turns this into some *****ing about opportunities thread. </p>

<p>Sblake, doesn't it cost upwards of 20K w/ all other stuff included to attend some UCs? What about the fact that many don't have access to publics that are "decent"? By decent I mean schools that have programs the student wants to pursue, or aren't schools of masage therapy. I guess some posters would say suck it up.</p>

<p>"Also, the public colleges that many CC members look down on because the CC members think they themselves deserve better"</p>

<p>Nice shot, who was this directed at?</p>

<p>"but I would never envy poor students because I know that my family has many advantages that they don't."</p>

<p>No one was "envying" the poor. Maybe in your quest to cast me as an ungrateful snob, you saw that. If so, I suggest no more high horses.</p>

<p>It seems like very few posters answered with something decent, and turned to the good old ad hominem. I would like to hear why people disagree w/o some lecture.</p>

24

<p>Karl Marks: So let me get this straight. You understand that the wealthy worked their way to get there. You understand that you have to do the same. But yet, you complain that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. What are we supposed to do about it? Take from the rich and give to the poor? Or give to the middle class? That's a bunch of ****take. If you want to live in a communistic society, then get the hell out of here. Quit complaining and just accept the fact that life can be unfair. People worked to earn enough money to give their children options and make their kids lives a little easier. If you're going to blame anyone, it should be "your" parents. They obviously did not "work" hard enough. I don't give a rats tail if they worked 40-50-60-70 hours a week. It obviously doesn't provide "you" with the lifestyle that "you" expect. Some others here accept the fact that they have to work a little harder to get where they want to go. And you don't hear them whining and complaining that they don't get an "easy" ride. Get over yourself and quit trying to argue with me cause you made yourself ignorant by posting the initial post in the first place. You shouldn't blame people for your sufferings, especially, since you have the power to change all of "your" problems. </p>

<p>Nothing is easy in life. Get over it, suck it up, and move on.</p>

<p>The side effect of a capitalistic society is that the weakest get left behind. The strongest move ahead, the middle stay idle. Simple as that. Squeezed out? More like too weak to move ahead. Everyone has the same opportunity to earn money to make life a little bit easier. No one says you can't work full-time and go to school full-time. Is that too much work for people? I don't think so. We should all be pulling 70-80 hour weeks. But for some reason some people are lazy, -flat out-</p>

25

<p>Karl-</p>

<p>Yeah-- the UC's run 20K+ including room/board, books, and incidentals. Many have done it for less, though-- and living at home is an option for some.</p>

<p>In Calif, the Cal State system provides a 'decent' education by any standard, and the academic standards for entrance aren't as rigorous as the UC's. Enough diversity of educational programs to satisfy anyone. And generous financial aid for the needy.</p>

<p>(I mistyped above when I typed that Berkeley provided a "full ride" to 995 kids. They met full need to that number, but for most full need isn't the same as a full ride.)</p>

26

<p>What sorts of offers do you think 0 EFC families are getting from top public universities, if not generous offers of aid? If the 0 EFC families aren't getting the generous need-based offers, who is?"</p>

<p>Check out the U.S. News Premium College Site (which costs you $15 a year to access) and you'll find that most public universities do not guarantee to meet 100% of students' financial need. Also, even if they do, their financial aid packages tend to be very loan heavy.</p>

<p>Public universities, unlike places like HPYS, lack the endowments to provide extremely generous financial aid.</p>

<p>Also, poor students are far more likely not to be able to get into top universities of any kind because the weak public schools that they tend go to do not have strong AP programs nor provide the kind of challenging curriculum that helps students do well on SATs and ACTs.</p>

<p>Poor students are far more likely to go to noncompetitive public universities, and those universities don't have much financial aid. When I taught at a third tier, some of my low income students were more than $20,000 in debt by their junior years despite working fulltime during the summers and up to 30 hours a week during the school year while taking a full courseload. Some also were sending money home to help their families (parents, grandparents, siblings).</p>

<p>In checking Berkeley's common data set, I see that on average, its financial aid covers 89% of fulltime undergraduates' financial need. The average annual need-based loan is about $5,000, the average self help (not including loans) is $6,000+.</p>

27

<p>From a NY Times article:
"In certain respects, flagship public universities have become more like private institutions. Public universities are still far less expensive, but with their tuition rising rapidly, enrolling low-income students has become as much an issue for them as it is for private universities. </p>

<p>From 1995 to 2003, flagship and leading public research universities quadrupled their aid to students from families with incomes over $100,000, while aid to students from the poorest families declined, according to the Education Trust. The best public universities, the group said, have come to resemble “gated communities of higher education.”</p>

<p>And their aid policies are paramount, because aid given by the universities dwarfs what students get from the federal government. </p>

<p>“The rise in the quality of public flagships across the country is in principle a good thing,” said William E. Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland. “What’s begun to cross the line, though, is when in the pursuit of excellence, our financial aid gets distorted in a way that high-achieving, low-income students who are qualified to go to our best public institutions can’t.” </p>

<p>In an implicit recognition of this distortion, several public universities have started programs to help low-income students.</p>

<p>The Carolina Covenant at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was the first such program. Started in 2004, it guaranteed low-income students enough aid to graduate debt-free....</p>

<p>The University of Virginia followed with a similar program. And just this fall, the University of Washington did as well.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/education/20colleges.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/education/20colleges.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

28

<p>Sblake, you have an odd way of interpreting the stats. The report that 995 of the 1934 reported to have need had their need fully met does NOT mean, as you wrote, that they received full ride offers. It means that Berkeley gave them sufficient aid to meet their EFC. If their EFC was $17,000, that need could have been fully met with loans and work study -- hardly a "full ride". </p>

<p>Also, stats that say that a college meets, on average, 90% of need do NOT mean that all students get 90% of their need met. It's an average -- since we know from the stats that you reported that 51% had 100% of their need met, it means that the other 49% probably had only about 80% of need met -- and the lower a person is on the economic scale, the bigger a gap is reflected by an 80% award. (If need=$20K, then an 80% award leaves a $4000 gap; whereas if need is only 8K, then an 80% award would be a $1600 gap. </p>

<p>Middle class families are far more likely to qualify for PLUS loans, and far more likely to be able to handle the loan payments -- so a gap that needs to be filled with a loan is a lot more affordable to a family that at least has some discretionary income to put aside toward loan payments.</p>

<p>The stats you cited report an average $12K grant, which would be about half the overall cost of attendance for Berkeley. Extrapolating that against the average 90% need/met figure, and adding in the average $4K loan, we have an average level of need of around $18K; and an average gap between need met and total award of $2K. To a middle class family, $2K is not really a terribly high amount -- the family probably pays more than that for annual vacation travel. But to a poor person.... $2K is a hefty sum, especially when it must be scrounged on top of a $4K loan. </p>

<p>Yes, there is a middle-class squeeze.... but the poor are getting squeezed, too. </p>

<p>A full ride to Berkeley would entail a grant of around $20K -- if the average grant level is $12K, then we know that not many kids are getting the $20K -- so there can't be all that many -0- EFC kids at Berkeley. My guess is that most of those grants are going to kids from middle class, not lower class, families -- with parental incomes of around $40-$60K.</p>

29

<p>CalMom- Yes, I corrected myself above about the "free ride" vs. "met full need".</p>

<p>Northstar: You fall into the rich vs. poor divisiveness trap when you quote NY Times articles citing % increases of aid, instead if actual aid amounts, which includes need-based and merit-based aid, and by again falling back on the other reasons that some poor kids don't qualify for the top colleges. Most rich kids don't qualify for the top colleges either.</p>

<p>And yes, there are loans involved in most all aid packages. You mention Plus loans-- which are not a part of the financial aid offers.</p>

<p>Fact is, that the most generous need-based financial aid offers go to the most needy-- those with 0 and low EFC's. You can bring in all sort of other sociological reasons that some can't get into various top tier colleges, but that's a different issue.</p>

30

<p>Sblake, the fact of the matter is that very few school schools provide 100% of need. State schools do a poor job of providing 100% of need. Much of the need provided can be in the form of loans as well. The truth of the matter is that kids who come from economically challenged households often do not get enough money to go to college. The sacrifice it takes to make up the gap of several hundred dollars is often too much for those famiies, wheras those who are better off financially can come up with more to give up and make up the gap.</p>

<p>Who is getting the money if not the most needy? The most talented students tend to get the most money regardless of need. Other than the top schools, there is no campaign to attract kids who need a full ride. And those top schools get very few who are qualified to take advantage of their campaign. They do not want kids who are not able to do rigorous academics. Trying to get grant money other than the amount that the Pell and other government grants out of the local schools here is a futile gesture unless you qualify for merit money. There isn't much there for financial need other than government money and some small merit scholarships. I have looked for a very long time in several locales for some kids who needed financial help to go to college. THe best they can do is to work and take a few classes, but not being full time cuts into the govt money they are entitled to. If they are truly motivated and able, they can work full time AND go to school full time, something we often read about in the Horatio Alger mode, but the truth of the matter is that few 18 year olds are able to do this. Yes, there are some, and those kids will be very successful as it takes a lot to sustain that kind of effort. Remember, we are not talking about the motivated, dedicated, outstanding student that could get merit money and qualify for full rides at some privae schools. We are talking about the average B-C student who isn't that great at school and not so motivated about further education, but just might be if put into the right environment. Working full time and spending all his money and time hanging out is not going to be the type of prep for such kids, especially in some areas. A recipe for acceptance to a different type of institution, that would be.</p>

31

<p>My friend is a professor at a local community college. She provides an excellent education at a relatively affordable price. While this may not be the kind of college many of us would envision as our "dream," at least the community college allows students who otherwise could not afford college to do so. Our local cc has matriculation agreements with many colleges, and students who plan properly can transfer after their sophomore year --- they can earn a degree from a good, solid college or university at a fraction of the price they might otherwise pay. </p>

<p>Life isn't fair, but there are ways to achieve our goals, even if those ways aren't our first choice. There are affordable options for most (definitely NOT all) students.</p>

32

<p>Im not trying to belittle your situation, but Jesus, my family would swap places with any family making between 85 and 110k in a heartbeat...</p>

33

<p>Yes, the costs of a college education can be staggering...for almost everyone. But this is not a surprise and doesn't happen the day before a senior in high school puts in college applications. As a family in the "middle", I guess, we watched the skyrocketing college costs over the years, and we planned accordingly. This meant making essential purchases (like cars...we happen to live in a rural area where there is no public tranportation) well in advance of college bills looming. We paid down our mortgage so that our monthly cash flow would be better (yes, we have more equity, but we also have a lower monthly payment due to prudent refinancing, thus increasing our "available cash" for college bills). We are VERY careful with our spending...no frills...(no vacations, no new cars, few dinners out, few new clothes, do a LOT of discount shopping even for food, turned the thermostat down to 65 and put on sweaters). And we made the decision that both parents need to continue to work while the kids are in college (even though one parent was ready to "retire"). Also, the kidlets are responsible for all expenses beyond tuition, fees, room and board. You know...when we had our two kids, we hoped that they would go to college. I guess our feeling was if they found a different path to their futures, it would be a "financial bonus" to us. But we planned. As I said...the expense of a college education was no big surprise...none.</p>

34

<p>I don't envy people with 0 EFC. What I envy is that they can choose a college without regard to cost because, in many cases, it will cost them the same regardless of where they go. They do not need to consider cost when choosing a college. If you are paying full price, I don't see how you can not consider cost and it is just hard to justify paying an extra $20-30K per year when a public college can get you into the same graduate school. I always planned for my children to go to college, but I never planned for them to go to the most expensive college. So they don't have that option. It is hard for them to understand how the 0 EFC kids do.</p>

35

<p>But you are again assuming that people with 0 EFC get full need met. That is simply not true at at the vast majority of colleges in this country. A point that has been made over and over again on this thread.</p>

<p>Yeah, they have choices--the low income students at the school I work at "choose" to work 40 hours a week, "choose" to graduate with 30-40K in loans, "choose" to take off semesters because they can't make the bills. Some "choices"!</p>

36

<p>sblake:</p>

<p>Your interpretation of UC financial aid policies couldn't be more incorrect. A family with only a $20k income, will receive a grant of $12-13k, which covers approximately half the cost of attendance. The remainder must be met with self-help.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/payingforuc/finguide_fr.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/payingforuc/finguide_fr.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

37

<p>I've said repeatedly that most aid packages include grants, loans, and work study. I've also said that the most generous aid packages go to those with the lowest EFC.</p>

<p>Trying to confuse the issue by invoking various social ills, or bemoaning the fact that few schools meet full need doesn't change the fact that the poorest families with the lowest EFC get the most generous need-based aid offers.</p>

38

<p>I think the most generous aid packages also are weighted for merit or other factors- given comparable EFCs</p>

<p>My d for example, had minimum subsidized loans- small amount of workstudy & the rest in grants, while those who had higher GPA/scores, and similar need but apparently not what the school was looking for at the time, didn't recieve what they expected to be able to attend</p>

<p>This school supposedly met 100% need, although other CC parents have found that not to be true.
( no strictly merit from school)</p>

<p>I haven't seen the percentage of students with zero EFC, although I expect mini has that somewhere.
Our EFC was about 1/4 to 1/3 of our very modest income, and required not only a $3,000 contribution from student to meet it, but for us to take out loans, that we did not expect.
This was not necessarily a smart financial move for us, as we had to not only take money out from retirement account, but it impacted any future savings.
Students that have a 0 EFC and are qualified for the most competitive colleges ( which are the ones that meet 100% of need), are undoubtably much less numerous, than the students whose EFC is $10,000 or less and who have little idea with how they are going to come up with that figure every year, let alone the amount after EFC to pay tuition.</p>

<p>While there are ways to find more affordable education, ie community colleges, families who are financially disadvantaged, dont necessarily have the knowledge to think outside the box & high school counselors are spread too thin to help.</p>

<p>Public schools, which are the ones that low income students are steered toward, aren't necessarily going to have either need or merit aid, not enough to make a difference anyway, and also are not necessarily going to have the supports that a student coming from a very low income family will need to be successful in college.</p>

<p>Some colleges that attract low income & minority students for example, have less than 20% of those students graduating after six years.
NOt a good use of money IMO
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/education/15graduate.html?ex=1315972800&en=e4e128540f63c91c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/education/15graduate.html?ex=1315972800&en=e4e128540f63c91c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>