<p>Ha! The college I turned down is on that list and the one I might transfer is on that list, as well. </p>
<p>Oh, New College, how greatly underestimated you are. ;)) </p>
<p>Well, every school has it’s “downfalls”, even Ivy League schools (shocking!).
Apparently, you just really don’t like the school which is fine. I tend to be a bit biased in their favor since I graduated from there ages ago, but I haven’t lived in Florida for a long time. I will say that their engineering graduates are pretty heavily recruited by most of the big companies and do very well out of state.<br>
Don’t be influenced by the petty in-state rivalries.</p>
<p>Back to the topic of the thread, I still say if one is majoring in engineering a degree from a good state flagship (and UF is a good state flagship) will get a graduate just as far as one from a more “elite” school. If someone has the extra money to pay for the “elite” university and wants to do that then, no problem. If they are middle class and have to borrow money to do it then it’s foolish (IMO) but if they want to start their professional lives with debt then they chose to get “hammered”.</p>
<p>I don’t have anything against the University of Florida, to be honest. Don’t know why you’re getting so flustered, but you’re an alumni so I guess it explains somethings. :shrug: </p>
<p>LOL, no I’m not flustered Niquii. It’s been stated time and again on CC that engineering majors do just as well post college with degrees from state flagships as they do with degrees from private schools and that there is no advantage to be gained by taking on debt. I thought this was common knowledge around here.</p>
<p>Whatever Saona63 wants to do with her kid is her business. I thought this thread was about avoiding debt for middle class kids. If they and their parents insist on taking on enough debt to equal a down payment on a house, that’s their business (as long as they don’t whine about it later).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand this. How do you want to be acknowledged for your contributions? I don’t think middle class people give back to our economy and society in greater percentages than any other group.</p>
<p>Thank you all</p>
<p>@FrugalDoctor . . . you wrote in response to my post: “Are you seriously saying that people with the opportunity of completing a degree in 2 years (after high school graduation) are purposely dragging out that process to 4 years? Though I understand your hypothesis, it would make sense for those kids to come up short of an AA degree, but complete college as quickly as possible to get a real job and make real money.”</p>
<p>Is “seriously” a sub for “truthfully”? If so, then absolutely true, and I am absolutely serious. Not an hypothesis, but reality. Fact. Most of the college prep students I know in this particular Florida county take the dual enrollment courses, earn all those credits, then apply to UF or UCF, or other Florida publics, and apply and are admitted as Freshmen. And why not? They get their Bright Futures money for all four years, even if they have completed nearly two years of college credits, and they get to pursue double or triple majors now that most of their gen ed degree requirements are fulfilled thanks to dual enrollment. The only kids I know who have pursued dual enrollment and graduated from high school with both the high school diploma and the AA and did not pursue the path described above are those students who either did not want to go on to get their BA/BS, but chose vocational career paths and only needed the AA, or are homeschoolers who did, indeed, utilize dual enrollment to fulfill both high school and college requirements, and then transferred as juniors to a Florida university.</p>
<p>But the public school kids I know are doing exactly what I described above, and their parents are encouraging it. Why not do this if it does not cost them any money? They are not interested in moving more quickly into adult life and careers. The only incentive to utilize dual enrollment as it was intended is if you are ready to move on beyond high school and get to living as an independent adult. As many news stories indicate, many young people today don’t find that prospect of independent adult living to be that compelling.</p>
<p>I just noticed the other response to my post, again calling it theory. Why call this all theory? It is absolute fact. I agree there is some poppycock involved - that created by the students who take advantage of free college classes while in high school, and then still hang out at the public universities for an entire four years.</p>
<p>As far as the student who qualifies for the top Bright Futures award (I know all about the money - my son will qualify for the top award though he is not staying in Florida to use that money), just because that student may enter college with the credits earned at no cost via the dual enrollment program while in high school, that does not mean that the student will only stick around and use a portion of the Bright Futures. Yes, the student who intended to use dual enrollment as it was originally conceived, as a low cost means to earn college credit and shorten the length of time to earn a BA/BS after graduating from high school, will go ahead and earn that fully transferable AA degree and then start as a junior and get that degree done in two years. But too many students are earning those college credits, stopping short of the AA degree (because earning the AA would mean they would have to enter the university as a junior and only get Bright Futures for two years), and staying at the university for the full four years. As you (Niquii?) mentioned, some of those college credits earned via dual enrollment might not transfer for one reason or another. Then why is the state allowing students to take dual enrollment classes that won’t transfer to the university? And why are high school students allowed to take all of those credits and still apply as Freshmen? Either the program needs to limit dual enrollment classes, capping the number of credits earned at far less than is allowed today, or require that those students who take advantage of dual enrollment either get that AA or be classified based on number of credits, not years in college.</p>
<p>The only good news is that, at least for now, most high school students don’t have the ability or motivation to pursue dual enrollment. But plenty of savvy upper income parents have figured it all out, and, yes, their kids (who are the ones who get most of the Bright Futures money anyway) get up to six years’ worth of college credit thanks to the Florida taxpayers.</p>
<p>And for your reading pleasure . . . an article from 2011, but still on point:</p>
<p>“Is Dual Enrollment Really the Fast Track?”
<a href=“http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110813/ARTICLES/110819758?p=1&tc=pg”>http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110813/ARTICLES/110819758?p=1&tc=pg</a></p>
<p>That is so disappointing to read. I am not a Floridian, but to learn that a program meant to help educate motivated students can have such an opposite effect in the long run. I have to look into what is occurring in my state with a similar program. </p>
<p>I’m pretty sure if they implemented a clause that included the credit received from AP and dual enrollment in the 120 credits used for Bright Futures, students would be humming a different tune. </p>
<p>I’m still taking four years (give or take a semester), but I’m not taking 120 credits over my time. </p>
<p>The best way to have the college student(s) ‘do better’ than their parents have done in life (not just with earnings, but quality of life and other measurements) is to properly plan for college and being academically prepared. Having the proper preparation to do well on the standardized testing (ACT and SAT), taking full advantage of hard work in high school and all school history (taking advantage of IB or AP courses and testing), any CLEP testing for their school and degree plan. If the in-state public college that offers the best financial package means a stretch for the student financially, defer for a year and work to save up the money so you can take advantage of a 4 year scholarship. Then once at the school, supplement school with a side job to do as well as you can without student loans if possible. Some students are in a state with poor state school options. Perhaps they need to apply elsewhere and have a plan - living with other relatives, establishing residency. A scholarship type of student should be smart enough to navigate with the right kind of advising. If parents are deeply in debt, they need to seek financial advising elsewhere.</p>
<p>Some families have money to throw at college, regardless of the merit nor maturity of their S/D. We do not. </p>
<p>Fortunately our DD1 and DD2 have worked hard on both academics and standardized testing and have scholarships at the state school of choice in AL (one at UAB and one at UA). We have invested in much of their elementary schools being at Catholic schools, and paid 7 years of Catholic high school (high school total bill for 7 years was $ 49K). We have saved for college with a pre-paid college plan, and each DD received some death benefit money from their grandparent that was well-invested.</p>
<p>There are many people in their 20’s to 40’s that did not realize how much student loans would be a heavy anchor around their necks. There is a lot of warning out there, but many high school counselors like to push ‘glamour schools’ - however they are not footing the bill!</p>
<p>@chesterton, interesting article. </p>
<p>The article (remember, 2011) mentions that “UF received 816 applications for high school dual-enrollment students for the upcoming school year, admitting 490 as freshmen and 78 as transfer students.” We don’t know how many dual-enrollment credits those 490 admitted freshmen had, and we don’t know how many ended up matriculating to UF, but one’s first reaction is that capping dual-enrollment credits at, say, one year of college credit would be a money-saving compromise. </p>
<p>Later in the article we learn that “[a] state education department report found that dual-enrollment students in 2009-10 were exempted from more than $48 million in tuition.” But the article also discusses how the dual-enrollment students do better in UF classes. I’d be curious if funds spent on dual enrollment result in other savings from students not flunking out etc etc.</p>
<p>Then there was this: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ugh.</p>
<p>Many of us live in states where there are no programs like Florida’s so the assumption that everybody can do something like that isn’t really valid for most of us. That’s one of the false premises that are always perpetuated on these threads. </p>
<p>Real life example- The year before my D was graduating from high school, my ex-husband (her father) had been unemployed the entire year. I was making about $60K a year gross (45K/year take home) and not receiving child support because of his unemployment. I had a major home repair that had to be done for our safety and I liquidated some retirement to pay for it. This falsely inflated my income for that one year. My D’s financial aid packages from every school she applied to ranged between 18K and 22K (after the requisite federal direct loan of hers for $3500 and her work study amounts). Does that seem like a reasonable amount for someone taking home $45K? Of course not. </p>
<p>State universities within driving distance (2) were evaluated as an option. The cost of reliable transportation (no public transportation available) was going to negate the price difference of a dorm at any of her universities because I was going to have to pay full tuition no matter what. Scholarships? Sure, some may have been available, but the ones that were enough to make a difference weren’t given to very many students and they required weekend long competitions for them to give 8 scholarships. We evaluated community colleges. They weren’t going to be that much cheaper since we would still need reliable transportation. We also knew a lot of kids who went to CCs and then, when they went to transfer to a 4 year university after two years, found that half their credits wouldn’t transfer or, even if they did, there so many courses required to be taken at the four year university, they still ended up there for 3 years instead of 4. Two years of CC plus 3 years of university = 4 years of university. No savings. For us, in that situation, it made no difference which school she went to. The least I was going to pay was $18K no matter what. That’s the kind of income level where it isn’t logical or feasible for people to do it. There isn’t an option that costs less than that when you really add up all the costs in some areas and states. </p>
<p>So, I bit the bullet and took a large Parent PLUS loan that year, knowing I wouldn’t have falsely inflated income the next year and hoping the financial aid would be better- and it was. And now I have a job that allows me to afford my expected contribution so I won’t need to take loans the next two years. My bonuses for the next couple years should pay off that first loan. We moved forward on a wing and a prayer. </p>
<p>I crunched a lot of numbers at that time. She could work part time and go to college part time and take 8 years to graduate. But when you really do the math of $$ made at those minimum wage part time jobs compared to what could be made after getting a degree in 4 years, it is financially MUCH more advantageous to get that degree more quickly. She works 3 jobs (and is in the process of getting a 4th). She works her tail off while going to school full time. </p>
<p>There is all kinds of data out there about how much more money people make with a 4 year degree than without. This isn’t news. Over a lifetime, it’s a very significant amount. That means those people pay significantly more in taxes also. They don’t need to use government subsidized programs. They benefit society as a whole. We all benefit if our people are educated. </p>
<p>Money$$$$. We’ll figure it out</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Plenty of people mind it. They complain about it everyday on this forum. As far as these programs being terribly abused - a nice myth that fits the victimization of the middle/upper class but just not true. </p>
<p>I don’t know if they’re ‘terribly’ abused, but there is abuse. I’ve witnessed it, and it’s shameful.</p>
<p>A lot of ill-will demonstrated here towards people who “aren’t like me.” That’s a shame. </p>
<p>My take is this: My last year of college at UC was 1974. Annual tuition was about $750. Minimum wage was $2. So a student who worked full time over the summer at minimum wage could pay their year’s tuition from those wages. Now annual tuition at UC is about $13,200 and the federal minimum wage is $7.25, $9 in California. A minimum wage summer job will only pay for one quarter’s tuition, and living costs have increased apace. The goalposts have moved over the last 40 years while the disadvantage to young people of not getting a college degree have increased. </p>
<p>The concept of a generation paying it forward to make a college education available for all young people - not merely one’s own children - seems to have gone by the wayside, as we fight like scorpions in a bottle over who is getting a better deal (out of the overall raw deal available to the poor and middle class alike.) Yes, I think that tuition at state universities (in California - don’t know about other states) should be lowered with state financed funding paid by taxes, so that the deal is less raw for everyone, and any bright young person could get a quality education without starting their life off with a mountain of debt… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s so easy to say, isn’t it? “Funding paid by taxes.” Just rolls off your tongue. Taxes are the salve for all ills. Healthcare? More taxes. Foreclosures? Taxes. Education? Taxes. Just keep taxing, until you reach the limit. France reached the limit. We are getting there. It’s working out so well in France. </p>
<p>There are many colleges and universities in America where the percentage of people who actually finish the degree is astounding low – like less than half of all students. I would rather not have my taxes raised to pay for that. It’s a bit of a fantasy to think that by raising my taxes everyone who is offered an opportunity will take it and see it through to completion, and it’s equally a fantasy to think that the only thing holding people back from getting a BA is lack of money – There are universities that don’t do a good job of sheparding students through the process, there are high schools that don’t do a good job of preparing people for college and unfortunately there are people who take out student loans and then do stupid things with the money – just like people did with home equity loans. Remember those? Remember how well that whole mess worked out?</p>
<p>It would seem like wealthy parents have nothing to worry about, and it is true that the students whose families are middle class cannot conquer the facts on the FAFSA, let me explain a few things. Wealthy parents do worry, and their challenge is to get their own children to qualify for the best and sometimes most expensive schools. I have known parents who have had to sell the house because the youngest child was coming up, and downsizing now meant the difference between a child getting what their siblings got. The wealthy need to join in and protest the cost of college, instead they are guilted into the have and have not argument that results in massive need based funding to the least able students in our country, and the disparagement of merit programs as being discriminatory.</p>
<p>When today’s parents went to college…the 1970’s the 1980’s college accreditation boards encouraged colleges to offer merit scholarships to the highly qualified students in our country, many in the middle class, who could not afford the high cost of private education. Today that is practically forbidden. It is unfair that the least in our country cannot meet the standards of merit, due to misfortune or parental choices or bad local education standards. So the magical remedy is to promote these students to college as if they had had all the opportunities the well off have had, and it costs a pretty packet. The middle class have usually not suffered enough to have had it impact their school grades, they are judged to have been fortunate. Promoting the lesser unfortunate is viewed as social justice in many circles, and impressed upon anyone with guilt, as the right thing to do to resolve unfairness. Combine that with the fact that many of these students come with complete government funding, and they are attractive sources of cash flow…for a time.</p>
<p>Why should the wealthy care about this? The reason is, that the wealthy college seeking parent is viewed as a cash cow to fund the whole shebang. Admissions offices are directed how much cash has to be generated by FULL PAYING parents in order to make the operations budget run. This is clearly wrong, and they should get a tax deduction for paying for others, but the emotional decision at the time to send a child to college blurs this fact. Tuition costs are set based on X number of full paying parents, divided into the number that the admissions thinks is advisable for whatever reasons they have. This sets the tuition price for that school out of range for poor students and middle class students. The poorest students come with federal funding…and a poor student with a Pell grant, my daughter was a valedictorian of her high school and we experienced this, is highly desired and few and far between. Perhaps you are a parent experiencing unemployment and know of which I speak. Accreditation boards look to see that financial aid offices fill the need of the neediest students, regardless of merit, before merit scholarships are offered to the general public.The minute you become employed again…you can’t afford the college, and your valedictorian is squat.</p>
<p>Middle class parents are charged the same tuition as wealthy parents, do not get first dibs on financial aid, and that tuition number was exaggerated at the admissions level in order to cover operating expenses. That magic number of how many wealthy parents they need at that tuition rate is the cause of highly inflated prices. The magic number the FAFSA tells you is your family/parental contribution is the other. The financial aid office starts with that figure, say it’s $20K and lops that right off the top, and does not have to give you the first $20K of the cost…and they don’t have any guilt, the government and the accrediting agency sees this as “fairness.” Then they get to say that loans are the next form of financial aid you will get, so if the feds say 10,000 is the max, guilt free, they put that on there. Now you can afford $30K for college, and they still didn’t offer your valedictorian anything in cash. Then they offer your valedictorian a $2500 loan. Minus! You NEED even less for college. And you still don’t have a penny. Then they give your student workstudy, Minus! and then a grant for the rest if you are lucky. It looks nice on paper. Or, if he or she was not valedictorian, they might offer you work study and less than you need in a grant.</p>
<p>Wealthy parents are being used in this system, and they don’t speak up. They are being used to set tuition levels higher than middle class families can afford and being told it is for the common good, AND, foisting guilt on them that they should be so fortunate. I think that laws could be made to govern the behavior of non profits that might change this, but not if we are all divided. Operational expenses should be divided evenly across the student body, and Then, let parents give tax deductible donations if they want to. It is wrong that a non profit, should charge people different amounts for the same service. And that rule, goes for the public colleges too. There, the funds are based on charging the max of what the government has to offer as a base for tuition thru Pell grants, instead of setting tuition as a free public college for everyone. There the Pell Grant money sets the minimum tuition level…and middle class students don’t get that. So, skewered from both sides.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m a California taxpayer. I have degrees from two UCs, with my funding paid for by taxes. I was able to work my way through my last two years of undergrad and finish with minimal debt thanks to the taxpayers of California. The state has more than recouped its investment in me–and in my spouse and my siblings, for that matter, who also received highly subsidized undergrad and grad college educations from California public universities and are California taxpayers. </p>
<p>So yes, like kluge said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen. </p>