<p>fin aid should be plenty, esp. for needy families.
I think sybbie is right.
Sorry, but JMIONE--stop hatin'. I mean, okay, families can't afford to pay--so why should they not get fin aid? and plenty of it? if you can pay for colleges, good, if you are so smart--good, get a scholarship based on your grades or whatever. But if you are dirt poor, then, well, you are poor and you need help--so you can go to colleges, and not be an uneducated bum.</p>
<p>"well normally I don't respond to ignorant posts but given the blinders of youth and my wealth of experience as a senior member "</p>
<p>How do you quote something in the little box??</p>
<p>I did the activities and classes because they look good for college. </p>
<p>okay breathfire, you miss his point. He's saying that poor people should get financial aid. But they get plenty of it covered through the grants and financial need. </p>
<p>The middle class is extremely screwed because oftentimes they require us to take money out of savings, retirment funds, t hus giving our parents nothign to live on.</p>
<p>If not that, the people who SAVE MONEY get screwed because when rich people spend all their money and buy lavish houses and expensive cars, and have a lot of debt, they have a much higher efc than the person who saves. So this family has a better lifestyle and gets more money from colleges. EXTREMELY UNFAIR.</p>
<p>many of us are middle class and like he said 75 percent of the scholarships are need-based, for hispanics/native americans/blacks (not other minorities NOOOOO screw those chinese and indians, etc).</p>
<p>Calm down. If you don't like how the systems works why don't you become a lobbyist and help out those horribly misfortuned, middle class "chinese and indians".</p>
<p>Who should determine ability to pay and how? I see families in some pretty luxerious situations who feel they cannot afford college tuitions. I also see families living in substandard housing in dangerous areas, sharing apartments with other families so that every dime goes to education. I can't advocate either, but someone has to make the parameters as the funds are limited. If we can get more money released for aid, the circle can be drawn larger. But right now the main indicator for financial aid is the income. Then the assets. It's just the way it works. And kids who do come from low income families should not have a higher bar to clear in order to get into a college. In a sense, they do, as most schools do not give 100% of need, aid packages often still have ornerous self help requirements(for the truly needy, they may be very difficult to undertake) and there are still need aware schools. Also many components of the app are implicitly income related such as test prep opportunities, tutors, special schools, ECs. So low incoome families do have it much tougher most of the time when it comes to sending their kids to college. </p>
<p>There are merit awards out there that are not income tied, and to many that is unfair because of the role income plays in getting the stats that are necessary for those scholarships. Middle income kids are often the ones who go for those, as high income kids may not want to bother with the process though many are automatic with the app. Those are not out there to help the middle class, but to buy students that the colleges feel they need more of. </p>
<p>The whole system is flawed in that college in this country is so dependent on the family/parents, especially the financial end. You need to get to grad school level before you are considered on your own merits and assets, and even then the schools are licking their chops for parental assets and income.</p>
<p>no you aren't required to take money out of retirement
I believe parents assets are considered at a much lower rate than the students
Most of the money that is considered to be available is income
Not savings, not retirement accounts
Years away from retirement is also taken into consideration
It is true that if you say have a house that has increased in value, but you haven't refinanced because you can't afford an increased mortgage payment, that will look bad on PROFILE .
However those people who refinance to take out equity and blow all their money on needless purchases are hurting themselves if they don't have income to make payments. They could lose their home because they wanted a new boat.
THose who have been able to save and plan will be able to retire.
Those who don't have retirement accounts either won't be able to retire if their health permits them to continue working, or else they will be a burden to their children. :(</p>
<p>i strongle disbelieve that you need money to do well in school.</p>
<p>my parents and many other immigrants are perfect examples. their whole lives they live thorugh economic and social poverty going to the worst schools, living on scraps, but yet they become successful.</p>
<p>as long as the student is motivated and has a desire to do well and succeed in life (and this means financially), he can do well. </p>
<p>and another point I want to make is that not all of us have the opportunity to major in whatever we ant in college nor do we like doing e.c.s that look great on college transcripts. I guarantee you that if e.c.s weren't looked at by colleges, you'd have a huge drop in e.c. activities. This is seen in europe and in asia where academics is stressed over e.c.s. America is the only lcountry really that has this policy that e.c.s are implicitly necessary and the belief that all students partake in activities because they want to is flawed. Of course there are some, but the majority do it to become successful in life.</p>
<p>WAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTT one second.
I never said low income families shouldn't get financial Aid. I just said that there seems to be more than enough scholarships and money out there for low income; I was just complaining that its seem most of the scholarships out there are need-based, and less merit-based.(when i think it should be the other way around)</p>
<p>Mmood, it is true that if a family's major focus is education, and I see families like that, it is not going to matter most of the time for the motivated student. But most kids are not that motivated, most families have other priorities. Most of us would put our money into a safe environment both in neighborhoods, jobs and schools rather than towards a top college. In our area, a Korean couple was shot to death leaving a couple of children. They were living, slaving, really, to get their kids into the best schools and were running a convenience store in a terrible neighborhood, that you know is prime for this sort of incident. One of the kids had been assaulted in school last year, the article said, as the school is a terrible one and dangerous to boot. A family friend was quoted as saying that the couple lived for getting their kids into the best colleges and having the money to pay the way. It was a compliment to their dedication, and the goals were noble, but I personally would not live my life that way, recommend it to anyone, want my loved ones going through this. Nor does it really make me feel like someone is being noble risking health working 90 hours a week, scrubbing steps and doing dangerous jobs for that reason. And I probably have lived closer to that edge than most people. There are some things not worth doing when they endanger life and health. I would never have wanted my father to shorten his life just for me to go to Harvard. And that is what some of these families do. When the goal is that narrow and the crux of family activities is aimed at such a goal, the chances do go up, but is it worth it? THere is much to learn about quality of life and family values from those who put other things before such narrow goals.</p>
<p>But the system is now in place that without going through such a gauntlet, it is nearly impossible for all but the absolutely brightest to get merit aid for college, if the family has economic and other challenges. But the above average scions of the uppermiddle/upper class, and, yes middle class, are so able, as there is that leeway in the budget to buy the things necessary to bring these kids up to a level high enough to get into a pretty decent school. Being able to pay that $45K tab makes a big difference in the options. Too big, in my book. </p>
<p>Also ECs are not as important as many kid think. Just compiling a laundry list of ECs is not going to get you any where. If your family is economically challenged, working is going to be the most impressive EC. The picture of mamma and pappa pounding salt and working themselves to the bone while the kids have private music lessons, and summers at Harvard precollege, Junior statemen tours, and other clearly expensive jaunts, does not make me feel good. Better to see the kid contributing some money in the till. And I have spoken to adcoms who feel the same way. The kid is being admitted, not the parent. What colleges want to see kids doing in their free time is something that is a "little bit more" in the way of interests shown in academics. Many kids are wasting their time blowing up ECs that really do not count. Yes, it may work sometimes, but the truly experienced adcoms can see from the activity, the level and the rest of the app, what dedication there is there. That is what counts. That and how much the college wants someone with that EC. But I can tell you that a job contributing to family assets is a very strong EC for kids whose families need that money. Silver spoons are not always just in the mouths of the well to do kids.</p>
<p>what i see is that most colleges want to give students enough financial aid (based on the efc) but still want the student to incur some loan.</p>
<p>anything over 15,000 dollars i'd say is a bit excessive.</p>
<p>one of the arguments i'd like to make is that since most students will get on average a debt ofa bout 15,000 dollars, regardless if you're poor or middle class, its only fair that all scholarships be open to everyone. </p>
<p>one scenario i can think of is that after graduation a student enters the workforce and is no longer dependent on the parents. say for an asian american student who graduated from college and has a 15,000 dollar loan and has no family to support or help pay off the debt (thus he's on his own), and a poor person has a debt of 15,000 a s well, and his family can't pay off the debt, they're really the same don't u think?</p>
<p>Mmood, I don't see any difference between those students other than the asian part. So, no. It is the same. And your arguments against open merit awards is classic. I think most colleges agree. But they want to build a vibrant diverse community more than doing that, and for some colleges without "buying" talent in certain areas, it is not going to happen. Therefore you have the merit awards. Colleges like the ivies have reached a point where their admissions pool and the accepted students will come together to such a communtity without buying certain types. Other schools are struggling to enter the national scene, build a humanities department, get more males, more URMs, higher stats, and the quickest and surest way to do this is to award merit money to kids that they want and will help round out their basic accepts. I lived near CMU for many years, and I can tell you that a well rounded out of stater applying to the HS&S school has a pretty good chance at a merit award whereas some top Pittsburghers don't even get their need met except with hefty loans. They have enough Pittsburghers that they fear they will be the next UPitt, so allowance is given for those majors and those kids that they lack naturally in admissions. Their scholarships reflect exactly what those lackings are. </p>
<p>I believe the $15K figure is in the ball park of what federal methodology feels is fair for student loans. Maybe slightly less. But a family with some assets stashed (only 5.6% of family assets is tapped), may well take over a student's loan whereas a family with no money will not be able to offer their kids such a deal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How do you quote something in the little box??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hi Blue,</p>
<p>{quote} text {/quote} but use the brackets [ ] instead of { }</p>
<p>Maybe merit-based aid should be called "scholarships" for scholarly attainment. Maybe need-based aid should be called something else, as scholarliness has nothing to do with it (IMHO). I have been disappointed to look at lists of "scholarships" locally, nationally and at specific colleges where one of the criteria, and sometimes the only criteria, is need. I know it is just semantics, but it contributes to dissatisfaction with the already flawed system.</p>
<p>Financial aid is just that. And scholarships are sometimes not just for the scholars. It has been said that the term athletic scholarship is an oxymoron and for good reason. There have been a number of disgruntled posters on these boards who did not get scholarships despite stats that had to be at the top of the admissions pools for some of these schools. Clearly, academic prowress is not the only factor being viewed and considered. There are other things colleges want for their class.</p>
<p>Absolutely, jamimom. I totally agree that colleges want other things that classes of perfect SAT/GPA people...and thank goodness! My own student is certainly not perfect. I just think that the term "SCHOLARship" sounds like is pertains to scholarliness in an academic kind of way. If students get need-based financial aid or athletic-based awards or performing arts awards...GREAT! We may get some of that, too!</p>
<p>xsabres9x - i agree with your statement. Until someone lives in that lifestyle, they have no idea what it's like. I also come from a very similar home and it's true that many times "luck" plays into whether you are poor or not. My mom is a single mother and most of her life has been made up of those moments that you feel, "it can't possibly get worse." And then it does. Physical disabilities that she had no fault in have left her jobless (after Worldcom's scandals cost her her job).. plus, we live in a very "rich" area where it is difficult financially live in anyways. Until someone lives with that feeling of not knowing whether groceries will be bought this week or where they are going to live the next week, they really shouldn't judge.</p>
<p>You are woefully misinformed.</p>
<p>There is both merit and need-based aid out there. Not all colleges offer both, it's true. It's also unusual for a college to cover all need with grants and work-study. An awful lot of students from poor families graduate with student loans.</p>
<p>my daughters school has need based aid- loans- grants- work study
Within students that qualify for need based aid, there seems to be a large merit component. Higher academic acheivement- more aid that is grants compared to loans.
They are also need aware when selecting students. Students that need aid that are not as academically competitive as others may not be selected for admission.
So while you may feel that need based schools aren't considering merit- that isn't exactly true. They do consider merit within the pool of students who qualify for need based. As students who qualify for need based aid can also be assumed to not have the benefits of students whose families have been deterimined to be able to afford full cost, it is probable that these students w/need have more promise than someone without need, who may have peaked in high school.</p>
<p>Hoedown, go get a guide of the thousands of accredited colleges in the United States. If you go though the financial section of each college, you will find that very few give 100% of demonstrated need. When you look at the actual $ amount of merit and need scholarships given, you will see that many schools have quite a gap there. The amount that the federal government gives to the neediest families is not going to touch the cost of private schools, or any school where the kids board. And many times these are the kids who most need to move out of their environment in order to have the best chance of succeeding in college and seeing a whole different way of life. I wish I could come up with a free college for the kids here at the school where I do pro bono work, where they could have a chance to get out of this nasty area and the problems that it has, and have a couple of years to try to make some headway academically. This is an inner city school with an average SAT1 of about 800, and very few of the kids go on to even community college. State subsidized voc ed programs are the big thing here. So it is very difficult to go against the grain and commute to college when you are in such an environment, and these kids' stats are not going to get them a dime of merit aid, and the type of schools that are a match for them do not give much financial aid over the state and federal programs. That is the vast majority of kids in this income bracket. All of the funding in the selective colleges is not going to help them.</p>
<p>And yet I lived in a cluster of low income families, being one of them, when H was a post grad. Those kids are a whole different story with some of them getting generous aid to Harvard, full rides to Pitt, not at all uncommon. Though the income numbers were low to compare this cluster with a true group of economically challenged kids is not even the same species, in my book. That is why, I wince when I hear that income should become a special category. Income alone is not the indicator of deprivity though statistically, yes, it does show up that way. Kids raised in low income households where the focus is on academics (statistically a very small number) will do as well or better than those upper income kids where there is not that focus. These are generally the kids who get the Pell grants at Harvard and the needy scholarships and I am telling you that this is not the same animal as the truly deprived child who is both culturally and economically deprived. If you have a couple of hippie PHDs with books galore, that provide every enrichment opportunity there is with the backdrop of a major universit right there, the offspring is not comparable to the kids at the high school where I work with families with jail records, drug problems, severe mental disorders, possible mild retardation, etc.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if your comments were meant to be directed at me? </p>
<p>I was the one who claimed that many poor kids graduate with a lot of loan. I was challenging the OP's claim that there was "too much" need-based aid available. I know not all need is covered--I work for a University that doesn't cover all need for Out-of-state residents. Even those who cover need don't do it all with grant. UVa and UNC and the Ivies who do this are sort of exceptional in this regard. The blend of what is granted for merit and what is granted for need is imperfect, but I've seen little data that suggest that the solution is to REDUCE need-based aid.</p>