<p>I’m going to get really drunk from all the whine in this thread. :p</p>
<p>~ Martina, SELFLESS & FULL PAY</p>
<p>Sewhappy, if you have a problem with Dad II, who makes less than you and has a lower sticker price for Stanford than you apparently do for Harvard, take it up with him – don’t take it out on the rest of us!</p>
<p>Have sewhappy and DadII disclosed their annual income and family’s financial situations for comparison? I sure didnt think so. The example in post # 1 was , per my understanding, some friend/acquaintance of DadII, whose personal financial situation we also know nothing about, which is why, as many have said all along, this whole discussion is kinda meaningless.</p>
<p>Dad II has not disclosed his income on this thread. BUT in the past he has said his income is about $10K per month (don’t remember the exact context and perhaps I’m wrong). His daughter is paying about $10K per year to attend Stanford which would align with an annual income of about $100K. </p>
<p>Don’t know about Sew…but if that family is a full pay at Harvard, with one kiddo in college, income is likely in the $200K per year range and/or the family or child have very significant assets.</p>
<p>
Wouldnt 10k/mo mean $120k/yr? Where the other $20k?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>After reading the posts on this thread, I realize the wisdom of this statement.</p>
<p>I realize now that financial aid is an extremely sensitive topic around here. Some people resent other people’s financial aid, and others resent being resented.</p>
<p>For the record, I will state my opinions below:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I would like ALL colleges to have students from ALL socioeconomic groups, living and studying as equals, learning from each other and with each other. I am glad that at least at SOME of the best schools in the country, financial aid policies make this possible.</p></li>
<li><p>I personally am only too happy to pay full freight for my D’s college expenses (but then we are well above 250K in family income). I don’t resent anyone else’s financial aid.</p></li>
<li><p>I do know and sympathize with folks earning $150-250K who have to make difficult decisions about whether or not $50K is affordable for their family, especially when they have other options that cost a lot less. </p></li>
<li><p>Based on statistics quoted earlier on this thread, 68% of the student body at Stanford makes either >150K or <60K. I am not sure what the distribution of the various income brackets is in the country overall, but it does seem to me that the 60K-150K group is underrepresented in the student body, while the >150K group is heavily overrepresented. I don’t think this is in the best interest of the colleges nor in the best interest of the students who attend these colleges.</p></li>
<li><p>I have a problem with (but no workable solution for) financial aid policies that make it unaffordable for children of affluent parents who simply refuse to pay, for whatever reason.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don’t see any reason to try to figure out someone’s income, based upon comments he or she has made in the past.</p>
<p>The issue all along has been that is it impossible, and pointless to try to understand the FA packages posted in the OP without additional information. Without it, and in isolation, the numbers are meaningless, and I can understand how they can come across to some, especially full pay parents, as gloating or bragging.</p>
<p>Here’s another way to look at it - </p>
<p>These are private colleges being discussed (although publics sometimes do something similar but at different thresholds). They can do what they want. </p>
<p>They could make the decision to charge everyone full fare but then they know they’d only attract a particular subset of the population - i.e. the very well off to wealthy (yes - I said that generally families that make >$200K/year are generally very well off). But the college might decide it has a major goal of attracting the ‘best and brightest’ which they know could not all pay full fare. </p>
<p>If they have enough of an endowment or benefactors they might decide to not charge anything to any accepted student. It’s debatable as to whether any of the colleges would be able to survive just off of the endowments. I doubt many, if any, could. </p>
<p>Assuming they couldn’t sustain the $0 fees, they could decide that they don’t want to limit themselves to strictly the well-off/wealthy (regardless of how they achieved that wealth) and want to attract top students from many walks of life and backgrounds, including those from families that don’t happen to have the funds to be full-pay. They might even decide they want to make sure they can attract the ‘best and brightest’ which of course, come from all backgrounds. </p>
<p>Still assuming they couldn’t sustain the $0 fee model, they might decide the best way to achieve their goal, that of attracting the ‘best and brightest’ regardless of wealth of the family, is to introduce a sliding scale of cost based on the available wealth of the family. They might realize they’d need to ‘enforce’ this by sometimes not subsidizing the kids of the well off simply because the parents choose not to pay the fees since this would set the model up for failure - i.e. a great number of well off parents upon hearing they can just ‘choose’ to pay less would likely make that choice which would destroy the revenue model and endanger the sustainabilty of the finances of the institution. It’s a fact that some kids being unable to attend will be the fallout from the parents choosing not to pay regardless of how well of they are. The well off need to remember that it may be just as difficult, sometimes more, for the family of more modest means to pay their less than full fare as it is for them to pay the full fare. And there’ll always be someone who can more easily afford it.</p>
<p>It’s true that people of different means may pay different amounts based on the above model - sometimes regardless of how they achieved (or not) their wealth. But there’s only so much the college can evaluate when looking at finances. They can look at the bottom line but does anyone really expect them to determine exactly ‘how’ they achieved that bottom line and make decisions of which are viable or not? i.e. a mom who stays at home to raise her kids with the resulting lower wealth, a dad who entered the clergy and earns a low wage, the family who took care of ailing relatives, and yes, the family who scrimped/saved/sacrificed as well as the ones who took elaborate vacations, the big house/boat/car/RV, etc. </p>
<p>The thing all of these families have in common is they have a kid who’s been accepted to the college and the college needs to make a decision based on readily available facts. The other thing they have in common is that accepting the offer, whatever it turns out to be, is entirely OPTIONAL. They get to decide whether they think ‘the deal’ offered to them is worth it to them. They know at the time that different people are offered different deals but that’s really irrelevant since it’s only the deal ‘they’ are offered that really matters. Once they decide to accept the deal they should be content. If after accepting the deal and making that choice they decide to whine about it they basically look foolish - they’re implying they made a poor, i.e. foolish, choice although most likely if given an opportunity to choose all over again they’d make the same choice.</p>
<p>Sorry, I wasn’t trying to “out” anybody. I was just going off already-volunteered info.</p>
<p>Well, I was trying to make the point that we can all make choices, including those who are modest earners. This is kind of subtle but if you try hard I think you may grasp it.</p>
<hr>
<p>My. I believe that I may actually grasp the subtlety. Is it perhaps related to the fact that those of us who do not earn a high salary have made poor choices that have led to our modest incomes? </p>
<p>Believe me, I did not make a choice to be a modest earner. Hard as it is for some to grasp, even low wage earners are often well educated, well qualified, and extremely hard working. I am actually quite intelligent. I would truly enjoy earning more. In fact, I should absolutely earn more for the work I do than I am paid. If I could choose, I would have a job that pays me more than I am paid. </p>
<p>Alas, the choice is not mine. If I quit, I am certain I would make even less. Even I can grasp that.</p>
<p>Two things:</p>
<p>I think we can look at POIH’s point in a different way. Once a student reaches the age of 18, s/he can be considered an adult. In many respects, parents are no longer responsible for that 18 year old. Why should parents be responsible for paying for college for an independent adult? In fact, POIH seems to be wondering why any 18-year-old should pay the consequences for any of their parents’ decisions.</p>
<p>Second, addressing those two families in QuantMech’s post a few pages back, the one who saved money and the one who didn’t. </p>
<p>If both kids from both families get into a school that pays 100% of demonstrated need, then I suppose from a purely financial aid perspective the family who spent money on vacations and expensive cars benefits. But this assumes that the kids get into one of those colleges, which tend to be the most selective in the country – most colleges DO NOT meet 100% of need, but gap students.</p>
<p>So when kid from family A and kid from family B both get into dream school College C (like NYU), and are asked to come up with $20,000/year above and beyond their EFC, I’d sure rather be in the position of Family A who has the money in the bank.</p>
<p>fireandrain makes a good point in regard to the question that I raised earlier. (Actually, it was Family A and Family 1, on purpose.) The particular issues that gave rise to that question are now about 40 years out of date. Costs of college have risen considerably in the interim. Forty years ago, I doubt that anyone was being asked to come up with $20,000/year above EFC–don’t think that would have even been possible. The treatment of savings in financial aid calculations may also have changed over that time.</p>
<p>Has anyone run several different scenarios (not their own) through EFC calculators, to see what happens?</p>
<p>With regard to vicariousparent’s post, I agree with items 1, 3 and 5. With regard to item 4, I am uncertain. I haven’t looked up the distribution of incomes–but beyond that, I think one has to take into account the possibility that the distribution of incomes in California might differ from the general distribution in the country (perhaps only in some ranges). Stanford is roughly 50% Californian, I think. </p>
<p>I can say that a studio apartment in Palo Alto currently costs more than the monthly cost of a four-bedroom home in our area. (Disclaimer: No one in our family is living in a studio apartment in Palo Alto! Couldn’t afford that!)</p>
<p>On item 2 of vicariousparent’s, we are also full-pay. We do not resent anyone’s financial aid. The choices made by Family A happened in my childhood, and do not reflect our <em>spendthrift</em> present. On the other hand, to say “we are only too happy to pay full freight”–nope, can’t get that out with a straight face.</p>
<p>twinmom, I’m not keeping track, but I suspect that vicariousparent’s family is currently “well above 250K in family income.” If, during income-tax season, someone complains about having his family’s deductions reduced due to their income level, or complains that their alternative minimum tax is set at a higher per cent, that does convey some information. (epiphany and Pizzagirl, please stop reading here.) To say nothing of the occasional comment, “Well, Bob makes $XXX,XXX,” when made by Bob’s spouse.</p>
<p>
Quantmech,
According to Standford’s website, 40% of their undergrads are from CA. And thanks to Bovertine’s nifty COL calculator in post # 317, we can see that, for example, the cost of living for a person making $100K in Cincinnati would be equivalent to a person making about $203K in San Jose. [Cost</a> of Living Comparison: compare Cincinnati, Ohio to San Jose, California](<a href=“Cost of Living Comparison Calculator”>Cost of Living Comparison Calculator)</p>
<p>Here’s a thought … let’s just say all 18 year olds should be considered independent. After all, why should their parents have to support them once they are adults? Then it follows that the companies who insure autos, health, homes, etc should no longer allow those who have attained the age of 18 on their parents’ policies. The IRS should no longer allow parents to list their 18 year olds as dependents. Taxpayers should not be expected to contribute to the 18 year old’s education - let the young adult pay for his own way in the world, like other adults (theoretically) must.</p>
<p>That would be quite interesting.</p>
<p>I have grown weary of the argument. Those who have seem to think they have less than those who have-not believe those who have, have. It’s a never-ending do-loop.</p>
<p>
Indeed. They could take it a step farther and charge really rich people even more than they do now. So if a billionaire’s kid wants to go to Harvard, why shouldn’t the fee be $500,000 per year?</p>
<p>
Your Uncle Curmudgeon has learned from watching his goats
</p>
<p>Up until the 70’s sometime (I forget the year) Rice University was free. If you could get in, there was no tuition.</p>