<p>I have heard that at some schools, like Harvard, that student tuition is based on the parent salary. For example, even though Harvard may state that tuition is $50K (I'm making up that number) you only pay 20% of your income. So in the case of parents making 250K a year they would pay $25,000 for tuition.</p>
<p>Can anyone verify if this rumor is true and if so which schools do it and is everyone eligible?</p>
<p>Thanks any info would be appreciated.</p>
<p>That 10% rule only goes up to a certain income. Those who are making (I think) about $160k or more, don’t get that 10% benefit. I believe that someone who makes $200k is going to pay full freight unless there are siblings in college.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if there is an abrupt line or not…it’s never seems to be very clear. I can’t imagine that someone making - say $159k pays 10%, but someone who makes - say $161k pays full freight. I think at some point, the 10% number starts increasing.</p>
<p>BTW…only about 4 schools have that 10% rule.</p>
<p>There are schools with more generous financial aid policies than others. They do tend to be the more and most selective schools. But I know disappointed parents who have found out that even at Harvard, the need is as they define it and it is not as simple as that formula appears.</p>
<p>These very limited number of schools are also extremely difficult to be admitted to.</p>
<p>The 10% is just a guideline, not a hard and fast rule, and 250k is above the income threshold for even HYPS. And while family income is the main driver, assets are also taken into consideration and higher than ‘typical’ (as defined by the school) assets will increase the amount paid by the family.</p>
<p>Yea, I knew it was just a few schools that did it that way. I just wasn’t sure of the income cap. We don’t make 250K I was just using that as an example but I do think that the cap is higher than 160K. I believe that someone told me last year that it was raised to 200K but that could be wrong too.</p>
<p>Again, I thinks its crazy that just because you make 159K you pay $15,900, while some who makes 200K pays full. Although you may make 40K more, you don’t take that money home and you’re even in a high tax bracket, making your tax payment higher too. Once again how is that fair. If a school is going to have a sliding rule like that it should be for everyone.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think it is perfectly fair to expect a family that makes 250k to be full pay, anywhere. </p>
<p>We do not make that much (about half that)–and were still considered full-pay by some of D’s high-end LACs. Maybe that was considered admit/deny. Maybe because I own a business. In any case, some schools thought we could afford 50k/year. I was shocked initially, but then realized how much more fortunate we are than so many. We could even, had we wished to, borrowed the additional (big gap) needed to make super-pricey U happen. We chose not to. We had lots of options that we could afford, not that it is easy. We had saved diligently and are able to pay entirely for a more modest price tag, no loans required.</p>
<p>But I see my D’s low-income friends struggling to come up with pretty small family contributions, and sometimes having to leave pricey schools…in debt and unable to borrow 5-10k to finish.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t change places with the lower income families.</p>
<p>Niether would I. Again i just think that we have all worked hard and deserve a proportionate piece of the pie. I’m not asking for a full ride. Thats disgusting, just a little help. BTW I don’t make 250k a year either, thats just a number I used.</p>
<p>I wish someone could really expose what exactly the 10% rule is for the few schools that sue that guideline. I know that income alone isn’t considered. Assets count, too.</p>
<p>But, if there is a 10% rule, then what happens to those who are “near” the threshold. For instance…</p>
<p>(all families below have one student in college, family of 4, little savings, little home equity, little investments - so little other money.)</p>
<p>Family A…income $150k</p>
<p>Family B…income $169k</p>
<p>Family C…income $172k</p>
<p>Family D…income $190k</p>
<p>Family E…income $200k</p>
<p>If the 10% rule has a threshold of $170k, then does Family B only pay $16,900, while Family C pays “full freight” (or a lot more than $17k…such as maybe $30k)??? If so, that’s crazy, because the family only earns a few thousand more than Family B.</p>
<p>and might Family D pay $45k even though it only earns $21k more than Family B.</p>
<p>and might Family E pay full freight of $55k+ even though it only earns $10k more than Family D? </p>
<p>While…Family A is paying $15k, while Family B is earning $19k more, but only pays $2k more. </p>
<p>There must be a more logical explanation that this. </p>
<p>Does anyone know?</p>
<p>^^^ It’s probably like taxes. For joint filers many deductions or credits (like that college tuition one) start to phase out at 160K and are gone by 180K. Looks like these 10% deals start to phase out at 170K and are gone at 200K or so. Yeah, for those on a W2 not much you can do to hide income, some executives can defer income which is a way of hiding it I guess. Self employed, same thing with defering income.</p>
<p>How can a self-employed person defer income, aside from ‘holding’ payments and depositing in the next year? (That can easily get you audited–the payees file 1099s which list what they’ve paid you, and if it doesn’t match up with what you put on taxes, you have to explain why).</p>
<p>As a self-employed person, I’m curious (not that I would do anything illegal!)</p>
<p>^^^ bill you client later, like after Jan 1 of following year is one way (but that only works for 1 year). I’m a w-2 person so can’t do anything at all. I’m just guessing that someone who actually is SE might know the trick. Maybe when selling insurance they can somehow structure their commission schedule to get it later. Or say they’re a vet, maybe let a partner get higher % of revenue for a few years then get it back after kid out of school.</p>
<p>Most, if not all, my clients insist on being billed in the calendar year/fiscal year (for many of my clients, fiscal year=calendar year). So for me (consultant) I am very limited on deferring income. I do sometimes receive payments on Dec 30, and might not deposit/claim that til the next year, but–that is pretty limited!</p>
<p>I do see that in theory I have more flex, but in reality–the people who pay me submit 1099s, and if my claimed income is different, I have 'splaining to do!</p>
<p>to be honest that 10 percent rule is no different with than regular fin aid. My S was accepted to Vanderbilt. We went to an info session where the woman speaking spoke in depth about how generous Vandy was with finaid. She stated that 60% of the incoming freshman will receive 40K out of the 41K tuition bill. Thats a lot of money to give to so many people. Mean time I must be at their threshold and Yes we got a big fat $0 from them. Again, this is my gripe why do some many people get so much and then others get nothing. When I hear something like that and I walk down the campus all I can think of is the few thousand kids that I’m not helping to educate.</p>
<p>I’m curious–was that 40k mentioned GRANTS only? I’m not familiar w/ Vandy’s FA stats.</p>
<p>It seems many colleges bat around impressive figures like that, but the actual package received by the person might be 15k grant, 5k gov loan, 3 k work-study and rest as parent plus loans.</p>
<p>The main thing to remember is it doesn’t have to be “fair”. Private colleges and universities can use their money however they want. At most colleges, the less you have the more difficult it is to attend. The fact that there are a few that have certain generous aid policies is nearly meaningless, since the vast majority of kids with high need don’t stand a chance of getting into those schools anyway.</p>
<p>But in any case, it’s not the job of those super-selective private colleges to share their financial aid equitably amongst the highest earning families in the country. They get to decide how they want to allocate their aid.</p>
<p>State universities on the other hand are basically subsidized for the rich. Everyone pays the same amount to attend, and because everyone’s taxes help foot the bill, the parents of kids who can’t afford to attend there are also paying for the $150K/yr family’s kid to attend at a discount rate.</p>
<p>If there’s a fairness issue, that’s it.</p>
<p>
so you don’t consider the fact that the “rich” pay more taxes than the people who can’t afford to send the kids there? If their income is that low where they can’t afford it (after financial aid) they probably pay little or no taxes. Nice omission of details that don’t help your argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Opportunity%20Adrift().pdf[/url]”>http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/Opportunity%20Adrift().pdf</a></p>
<p>It’s an interesting read.</p>
<p>paperplane: Yes its grant only, no loans for Vandy. Thats why I thought that maybe, just maybe we would get something thrown our way. But nope that didn’t happen. Oh well, what can you do.</p>
<p>A few schools like Harvard eliminated parental contribution requirement for families earning less than $60,000/year because they feel that these students should be better represented in their student body, so the generous grant packages are means of ensuring that low-income students can enroll. Not sure how aid works at the upper end of the scale, but here is how it is officially explained:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Income” refers to Adjusted Gross Income, both taxed and untaxed. Also, this is exceedingly rare. I think only about four colleges in the country currently have this policy.</p>
<p>Dungareedoll, is it fair that for families of the same income bracket, those who have unusual circumstances like medical bills get more financial aid? I don’t think the process can be 100% fair no matter how you make it so :o.</p>