<p>Enginox now you are getting to the heart of the real education scam where the public is told everyone should go to college. This is patent nonsense and is wasting huge sums of money and putting thousands of families deeply into debt for nearly worthless degrees. Almost all the non-selective schools should be shut down since they have graduations rates well below 50%. The vast majority of entering freshman require remedial work and most simply can not master the material required to obtain a meaningful degree. Yet hundreds of these schools exist and the private ones cost nearly the same as the top schools. In a rational world the colleges would be forced to compete on price but as I said before the main mission of the professional educator is to protect his/her job not to provide maximal value for the educational dollar.</p>
<p>SAY,</p>
<p>Perhaps those highly educated people should consider more affordable alternatives, or even non-university alternatives. Nothing wrong with sending children to a community college for 2 years, to an affordable state university, or to a vocational school. It makes no sense to me why non-wealthy people pay exorbitant amounts of money just for a brand-name and some social connections. Ah, of course… it would be socially awkward (suicide) within a group of college-trained people to mention one’s child became a plumber.</p>
<p>Poetgrl,</p>
<p>I can’t change the law. I’m just a common man. Vote for me, maybe? ;)</p>
<p>Kelsmom,</p>
<p>A fair price would be the price you and the seller agree on. Affluent people generally buy luxury cars; there is little negotiation in these transactions: a BMW is listed for $50k, the final price will be very close to that amount (excluding taxes, fees, etc). Same goes for houses, depending on market conditions. Why should university tuition work any differently? If the university knows you can pay full price, why would they offer you anything significantly lower, considering you strongly wish to buy their services?</p>
<p>SAY,</p>
<p>The problem is that it seems “not everyone can go to college” is an euphemism for “middle class and poor people should not attend college.” Now, I agree, not everyone should attend college and that includes a significant number of upper middle class, wealthy, and/or affluent people.</p>
<p>kelsmom imagine if the housing market was run the same way where people of different incomes all paid different prices for the exact same tract house. The reason why the colleges invented this system was to inflate the price they could charge without any risk of competition. They jacked up the price and then gave discounts to half the people to make it acceptable. The average price paid is just about 1/2 the list tuition price. This is the price it should be and everyone except the true poor should be charged the same. Then the schools would be forced to match the cost of the degree to value of the degree. If the degree had great value then it would make sense to take out the loans to pay for it. There is just no rational argument for charging a one working spouse family half the price charged to a two working couple family all paid exactly the same salary. A college education is just like any other good/service and should be treated as such. A college education is not a basic right where a bunch of bureaucrats should be fixing the prices based on their world view.</p>
<p>Yes Enginox you have noticed the elephant in the room. Political correctness demands that we continue to pretend that there isn’t an educational crisis in HS for minority males when 60-70% drop out of school. So instead the professional educators play a shell game push AA and brag about how diverse they are. But of course most of the minorities in the selective schools are middle to upper middle class and a very large number in the ivies are non-US residents.</p>
<p>I think Harvard should charge 200,000 a year…</p>
<p>Harvard would have no trouble filling up the school. No trouble.</p>
<p>Why should Harvard charge less than the market rate?</p>
<p>This way, Harvard is pretty much guaranteed to have a class of successful students.</p>
<p>Maybe, it should be 1 million a year…</p>
<p>Interesting concept. In other words, students would have to go to schools they could afford (just like I have to live in the neighborhood I can afford). </p>
<p>Seems that has been tried. Seems the schools themselves decided they wanted to bring in some diversity. Those who don’t like it should probably consider going to schools that do not buy into that concept. Better yet, they could start their own schools … (and probably opt not to participate in federal aid programs so that they don’t have to follow those pesky rules)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually think we should have a much more vigorous and “real” financial aid program AND colleges might have to charge somewhat less. But, I don’t think the solution is to continue to finance the education bubble on the backs of those just out of high school with no way of knowing their real future income.</p>
<p>But, I’m not arguing that we don’t really need a more vigorous financial aid program in this country. We should invest more in our future generations, not less. JMO</p>
<p>SAY,</p>
<p>The “mileage” of a university education may vary; two people obtaining the exact same degree will not obtain the exact same professional/social/personal outcome, much less two people with different degrees. In contrast, two people buying BMWs can expect very similar performances from those BMWs, if human input is not taken into account.</p>
<p>Dstark,</p>
<p>Yes, Harvard would certainly fill up the school even if they charged $200k/year. Perhaps they think amount of $ in bank account =/= successful students.</p>
<p>Kelsmom,</p>
<p>Instead, you can still see people obsessed with getting their children into Harvard, Princeton, et al. The power these institutions wield over these people’s lives is quite amazing. I think it’s very interesting that allegedly educated people can’t come up with simple solutions like pooling money to hire university professors and facilities for their children. Similar to how people hire private attorneys to handle legal cases instead of relying on public attorneys or pro-bono work.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, I can’t argue with that.</p>
<p>People who only make 250,000 a year are losers. </p>
<p>Why would Harvard want them?</p>
<p>There are plenty of good neighborhoods where families with incomes of 250,000 a year can’t afford to buy a home. Why should students from these families be able to afford Harvard? There are plenty of good neighborhoods. There is only one Harvard.</p>
<p>If Harvard raised its tuition to 500,000, the school could have smaller class sizes and the students can get more personal attention. And the students would not have to associate with people from the upper middle class…except for the employees…who can be better paid.</p>
<p>An Exception can be made for Natalie Portman. She’s hot.</p>
<p>Bah! Harvard should only accept nobility titles. Why should the nobility associate with the bourgeoisie and the peasants?</p>
<p>You’re probably right. I stand corrected.</p>
<p>SAY - I’ve been reading this thread & your various theories about class and income, but I think essentially it seems that you are upset that your student is attending an expensive private college and you feel your family should have received financial aid but did not. Does that sum it up? </p>
<p>I can certainly sympathize with your pain, as we have 2 in college now, one in an Ivy and the other in a highly ranked (#2) public university (we are OOS), supposedly known for good financial aid. Each costs about $50k per year. Aid was virtually non-existent until this year when both are attending simultaneously. AND the combined costs are MORE than our after tax yearly income! </p>
<p>I think that you are grossly overstating the amount of aid that the middle income families are receiving. Even though some ivies claim they are making their college affordable, some of that is public relations, and I can tell you firsthand that the charts they publish showing how much aid they distribute at different income levels does not really pan out. We were shocked at not receiving ANY aid the first 2 years of our oldest’s attendance at a university that trumpeted a policy to replace loans with grants. (Reality: he has borrowed $7k every year, after contributing 50% of summer earnings, and we still had to pull money from retirement accounts – all this after having saved $120k in 529 account.)</p>
<p>He was fortunate to have a wide variety of choices available - from $50k ivies and another $50k private, all the way to a full ride at our state university, and nominal aid at other very good state schools. Because of the huge price tag & lack of aid from the privates – we almost had to turn down all the privates. And we are in the income group that you keep claiming is receiving all this wonderful aid that you’re missing out on. I’m here to say the aid is not anywhere as generous as you think. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if we were so fortunate as to have an income of $250,000 (the group you say is being unfairly shut out of aid), then we would have no problem paying for college at the most expensive price tag. Nor should anyone else in that income bracket.</p>
<p>^To summarize, your family chose out of state universities well above your financial means and expected those universities to offer more financial aid… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and left money on the table. In the land of debtors, the debt-free man is king.</p>
<p>I think what Middleclass is saying is that they were disappointed in the aid, but decided that the education was worth carrying some debt.</p>
<p>Years ago, my wife and I went to a very expensive restaurant. While we were there, we noticed that some people at another table were given a free “amuse-bouche” that we were not offered. We resented that unequal treatment. This discussion reminds me of that.</p>
<p>“The current FA system provides absolutely no incentive for parents to save for college since that money will be held against the FA.” Could not agree more.</p>
<p>(lateto this thread, so please bear with me)</p>
<p>@Mythmom, you have a point, but community colleges are a whole different animal. They are affordable, and they are practical. My home-schooled older son is taking Expository Writing right now at our local CC. His teacher is fantastic, and we are more than getting our money’s worth. Four-year institutions are a different case altogether. The quality varies (sometimes it is abysmal – even at elite institutions, some teachers can’t teach – and the price tag is astronomical. No wonder many parents feel they aren’t getting their hard-earned money’s worth. They aren’t!</p>
<p>@Say–I do disagree that colleges should exclude average students. Average kids (500-level SATs) can and do succeed in college. I think it’s the totally unprepared kids who should think twice and maybe go to CCs first for some remedial work. Personally, I think CCs are doing a better job of preparing kids for the marketplace than four-year schools – at least in very practical areas like programming and web design.</p>
<p>What you say about state schools scares me. We are facing budget cuts here in NC, which will surely affect our first-class state university system and drive up our (now very reasonable) tuition rates, even for in-state students. Scary!!</p>
<p>“When this country figures out what it wants to be (manufacturing, technology, service, etc), the educational system will respond accordingly.”</p>
<p>Amen, MizzBee!</p>