I don’t think you can boil this down to a purely rational-actor-type “Is A worth $X more than B?” question. There are issues of things like, just to take one purely monetary example to set beside all the non-monetary possibilities, cashflow that factor in, as well.
PREACH. My point all along, and why I mentioned ironically and cyncially that Williams et al parade their Pell grant recipients as a form of virtue signalling, to mask their extremely elitist core. This is what is so sadly hilarious about this thread. This was my point all along. Go ahead, go up thread and review my links to the percentages of 630K+ income kids at these schools vs bottom 60% income.
What is so sad and pathetic about America, and CC as a microcosm thereof, is there are all these self-styled witch-sniffers who latch onto some random word uttered on some random thread and immediately enter pearl-clutching mode without a clue of what is actually being discussed. I have noticed this ever since being in this country and it always makes me want to vomit.
Perhaps this discussion has run it’s course.
Wow that Malcom Gladwell podcast is enlightening, especially on “elite” colleges. I encourage people to listen. The whole system is based on the population of full pay students. If the full pay were to drop, the whole system would be in trouble; or they could, god forbid, tap into their billion dollar endowments.
I don’t think it helps to label or use judgy adjectives about other peoples’ choices, which I know takes all the fun out of CC.
Behind each family’s decision process are competing priorities - retirement, special needs child, aging parents, spouse with health issues, fear of economic insecurity, obligations to the extended family, a desire to leave money to the kids, whatever. What is foolish to some is to others a core value. And we need to be respectful of that.
@Portercat: Yes, tuition is still very important to all colleges.
I don’t think the elites have to worry any time soon about a dearth of people willing to pay, however.
@PurpleTitan Some good examples in the podcast on how 1/4 of earnings on endowments goes to financial aid, and 3/4 goes back into the endowment; perpetually increasing the endowment. Imagine if that balance were more 50:50. Obviously, more for more elite schools. These are tax-free institutions (no tax on capital gains), so they are supposed to provide a public good.
@Portercat, I don’t want to derail this thread but there are some serious issues with the Gladwell Vassar/Bowdoin piece. It was discussed on CC when it came out.
People stick around after their kids have graduated because they had valuable experiences and can share that knowledge with others. That is the point of a board like this.
If everyone went to a board asking from help from other people who are asking for help, it wouldn’t be very useful.
See, for example, high school students who “chance” other high school students in the What Are My Chances? section.
For the sake of clarity… What is the the definition of Upper Middle Class on this thread? Thanks
" go up thread and review my links to the percentages of 630K+ income kids at these schools vs bottom 60% income."
There is no doubt that the 1% rule. Why should higher ed be any different than anything else in this country? As I said many pages back, those whining about low income getting all the breaks and they, as UMC parents, do not, should be looking up the food chain not down in their frustration and anger. However, that is one thing that hasn’t change since past generations which seems to be a concern of the OP. The very wealthy has always ruled at elite colleges, even more so in the past.
“Valuable experience,” yes. But also ongoing experiences and observations, of one sort or another. In many cases, this beats the random speculation and agitation. As I’ve said, I warned my kids not to fall for, “I think it, so it must be true.” Nor its sister, “I read it somewhere, so…it…is.”
We can think more critically. We can try to understand the colleges’ perspectives, not expect our high school experiences to be representative.
We on CC usually follow Census detail on income and ‘class assignments.’
“At the top of the income classes is the upper class. There is no single definition of whom this includes. Many think of the upper class in terms of the 1%. To be in the richest 1% nationally, a household needs to have the annual income of at least $389,436, according to the Economic Policy Institute.”
And:
"According to census data from 2015, 6.1% of households bring in $200,000 and higher every year and 14.1% bring in between $100,000 and $150,000. This is the upper middle class.
An Urban Institute paper argued that what they referred to as upper middle class, or those with a three-person household income between to $100,000 and $350,000, has grown from 12.9% of the population in 1979 to 29.4% in 2014. It found that people with higher incomes saw their earnings grow faster than those with lower incomes.
“The idea that the real divide is between ordinary members of the bottom 99% and the rich 1% is a dangerous one, since it makes it easier for those in the upper middle class to convince themselves they are in the same economic boat as the rest of America; they’re not,” wrote Nathan Joo and Richard V. Reeves of the Brookings Institution."
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx
Not sure if posters really strictly follow the definitions described in #532.
Usually, when used as a self-description, “upper middle class” refers to having a high income (probably double or more of the regional median), getting no or little need-based financial aid from colleges, but not feeling completely comfortable with paying private college list prices. Often accompanied by a lot of complaining about taxes (though often overestimated) and high cost of living as reasons why they cannot save up more for kids’ college costs.
There may be an unstated anxiety about future economic prospects for themselves and their kids, in that it is uncomfortable to think that downward mobility is more likely than upward mobility.
Ucb: No, they probably don’t. But that just yields misunderstandings.
Ucb, you’ve been around long enough to maybe remember the long, (ridiculous; there, I said it) thread proclaiming it’s impossible to live on 250k. The lean-on was some article describing the expenses for homes in the appropriate communities, utility costs to keep that big place warm in winter/cool in summer, cars, maids, vacations, business attire, dry cleaning, parking fees in the luxury professional high-rise, workday lunches, tutoring, camps, and more.
And after that, how can they be expected to pay so much for college?
Of course, there’s a doughnut hole. Of course.
@lookingforward who said “According to census data from 2015, 6.1% of households bring in $200,000 and higher every year and 14.1% bring in between $100,000 and $150,000. This is the upper middle class.” Can you clarify “This” is the upper middle class…are you saying it begins at $100,000 or $200,000? And are you saying that the next class or “elite” would be above $350,000?
I thought this (below) was an interesting website to note how the Pew Research Center considers the different classes…
According to this. If a family of 3 income is 130,000/yr they are in the lower end of the upper middle class if they live in the Central Valley areas in California, but solidly in the middle class if they live near the coastal region and/or the SF or LA/San Diego metro areas.
My point being there is a huge difference between the $125,000 and $350,000, so using the term UMC in this thread is not at all clear.
The Pew Research Center does not store or share any of the information you enter. They have a calculator that is interesting:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/11/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/
The website : "Your size-adjusted household income and the cost of living in your area are the factors we use to determine your income tier. Middle-income households – those with an income that is two-thirds to double the U.S. median household income – had incomes ranging from about $42,000 to $125,000 in 2014. Lower-income households had incomes less than $42,000 and upper-income households had incomes greater than $125,000 (all figures computed for three-person households, adjusted for the cost of living in a metropolitan area, and expressed in 2013-14 dollars).
\
In my area near NYC, $200,000 per year with several kids is not upper middle class. It is middle class. Yes, that means that if you make $100,000 per year and have several kids, you are lower middle class. $150,000 per year is on the edge of taking vacations every other year, using YMCA instead of private camps, buying new clothes as needed. Smack in the middle of middle class IMHO.
The trick is, a college that is in a less expensive area doesn’t believe your EFC is true. The $8,000 per year difference in EFC between my son’s college and FAFSA means that our ability to educate and provide for our younger children is negatively affected.
I’m sure anyone who is making less money and lives near NYC is crying a river of tears for us.
150K per year basis, college expects us to pay 40K per year for one student. That is living on 110K per year, with the only difference being one person less to feed. And we are “too rich” for him to do work study.
@rhandco Yours seems to be the closest definition of UMC for me. I’d think you’d have to at least make 200k to be on the bottom of UMC. Probably in the Boston area UMC starts at around 250k. But also I think assets factor in. At least 1 million.
@rhandco It isn’t just income that is the determinate, though. In our case, our large chunk of retirement money is unfortunately in aftertax IRA accounts (long story), so even though our income is similar to yours, our EFC is nearly twice yours…which is entirely laughable and out of the question with regard to paying college costs out of annual income. . If our funds were in 401K etc accounts, FAFSA would read entirely different. As you know, outside of a 401K or other tax sheltered vehicle, monies are not considered as “retirement” funds. And because of that, work study is also off the table. In this case, not a huge benefit to have been so frugal. Work study would seem to be a reasonable option to be eligible for at least. . Large merit scholarships are the only way we would even consider a private as we don’t believe in tapping significant amounts of retirement funds or taking out large loans. Luckily we have a healthy 529 account but not enough to pay for $35,000x4 yrs.
There’s middle class, as self-defined (and the subject of another Pew study,) and that based on number pooling and stats.
Yes, there are many interesting discussions. A lot of it is self-perceived, as RH shows. Some keeping up with the Joneses? Weighing based on what one thinks his buying power is, in one’s area versus a more statistical view?