<p>Crazyla--Again, I agree with you. I told my husband that maybe we should have squandered our money on new cars, bought a house in a neighborhood we couldn't afford, or developed an expensive crack cocaine habit, rather than working hard, cutting corners, saving pennies, skipping vacations, driving high-mile jalopies, suffering through endless nights of my so-called "home cooking," and hoarding whatever we could for our daughters' education. As it is, we qualify for no need-based aid, because even though $40,000 is a practical impossibility for us, we supposedly rank among the "affluent." I can assure anyone out there who thinks otherwise, most families with about $100,000 in annual income would be life and death trying to afford full private college tuitions today. Thus, I'm eternally, pathetically grateful to any good college that is willing to give a little merit aid.</p>
<p>Originaloog--Bravo! You're either a very lucky or a very wise investor. Or both. And how many kids did you put through college? We made the apparently horrific error of having two daughters. And YES, we've had 18 years to save for their education, but in case you hadn't noticed, college tuitions and expenses have absolutely skyrocketed over the past decade--far outpacing most families incomes and ability to save. So I applaud your ability to provide for your son so admirability. I assume you would have turned down any merit or need aid, if offered. Many of us are not so fortunate.</p>
<p>That is exactly why kids who come from such families look for merit money. FAFSA acts as if it doesn't take 60K or more of earnings to NET 40K to pay for college. Therefore, the thinking that such a family has 60K "leftover" to live on doesn't take taxes & FICA into account.</p>
<p>Agreed. ... Unfortunately, many, many good schools--including many of the most respected schools--give far more need-based aid than merit money. I'm not sure why some people are squabbling over merit money taking away from available need-based funds. In my college research, need-based almost always take precedence, especially at the "elite" colleges.</p>
<p>Should have read "Merit aid takes away need based aid from middle class kids and gives it to kids for merit rather than need". Point being that all the kids who receive aid are not poor. Merit aid does not take from the poor and give to the rich. Very little need based aid goes to poor kids.</p>
<p>Sorry Shedevil,
still very confused by your posts. Sorry, just not getting it.</p>
<p>The EFC calculation does not assume a family can pay the cost of private education in any single year. It figures a family's ability to pay back the debt that is accumulated. That is why it takes into account the parent's ages. </p>
<p>Take for example, a family of five earning $100k. About $30k goes to taxes and fica, $20k for housing, $15k for food/clothing, $15k for insurance/transportation/healthcare/other living expenses, $10k for retirement (most people do not have pensions). That leaves $10k/yr for education. If you have three kids spaced out so that they are not in school at the same time and you send them to private college, you will be paying $10k per year for about 60 years. I think 30 years is plenty, personally.</p>
<p>I wonder why someone would feel compelled to pay twice as much as necessary for something. I guess it is the same reason why some people feel they need a Lexus when a Camry will do. I think even if I won $100K, I would pay off my mortage, support some meaningful charities, allow my mother to retire...before I would pay for a prestigious school because of fit. I'm sure some people think they couldn't never fit in a Camry either. If you can't afford something, it doesn't fit.</p>
<p>One more try...Isleboy has repeatedly said merit aid hurts students
suffering in poverty...because of the cycle of poverty, not their poor choices. I don't think anybody who gets merit aid should feel badly that a poor child is going without dinner and college because of their merit aid. There are not many children going without dinner and applying to private universities. I believe Universities can provide for those that are, and still provide merit scholarships.</p>
<p>Again I feel this entire post has gone off topic. The OP wanted to know why so many posters are against merit aid.....</p>
<p>The bottom line is this: There are very bright kids in all economic levels - but unfortunately that "middle" economic group seems to get the short end of the stick. A student who has top grades/stats/whatever you want to call it and has done so, not by going to a "private school" or with "private tutoring" or any "pr reviews"</p>
<p>shedevil</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>I wonder why someone would feel compelled to pay twice as much as necessary for something.<<<</p> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>So you know of schools that cost half as much as other schools that will provide as good an education? Please share your knowlege with a parent of a student who wants to go into biomedical engineering.</p>
<p>I didn't say it would be as good as...Just like a Camry is not as good as a Lexus...But most state schools are good enough.</p>
<p>"I think even if I won $100K, I would pay off my mortage, support some meaningful charities, allow my mother to retire...before I would pay for a prestigious school because of fit."</p>
<p>Per above post: Where in the world do you live that 100K would pay off a mortgage, allow someone to retire and support some meaningful charities? That's got to be one place with a low cost of living. Bet the colleges are cheap there too. I guess you could save for college.</p>
<p>Good enough for who? An average student? That's not what this thread is about.... at least I didn't think so.</p>
<p>Merit aid should be just that.... for outstanding students who have
outstanding academic statistics.
An outstanding student (from middle income families) shouldn't have to settle for a lesser school just because a low income student with lesser stats has applied and is "politically correct'.</p>
<p>I agree. I'd love for my children to be able to compete for merit at all the schools that fit them. But if my children don't get merit, they won't be going to a $40K/yr school. And I won't feel bad. Even though they are excellent students and have excellent stats. $10K per year for 60 years is not an option. And yes, my mortage balance is about $100K. We've been paying on it for 23 years which is one reason we don't qualify for need based aid. We are supposed to take out home equity loans and start over. I'm 50 years old and would like to retire someday.</p>
<p>Yes, merit-aid would be great, if the reality that most schools would have to make choices between offering merit-aid versus need-based aid was IGNORED. If merit-aid was external to the college, and kids could carry it to whatever school they chose, it would be better. That way schools would not be making unsavory choices between giving out merit-aid and need-aid.</p>
<p>And, according to this thread, I should be upset that I have to pay for my education. Wow. My parents did work hard to save money, and made what would be called the 'right' choices. I don't have a problem with my EFC, even though I would be considered 'middle class' by this board.</p>
<p>Outside scholarship, I can deal with, but not university or college merit-aid, designed to attract certain "types" of affluent kids by giving them a tuition break simply because they are desirable (and the schools do know by zip code, other data) because of their good numbers (that would maintain or let the college gain in the rankings) which perpetuates competition for the top-25.</p>
<p>I do not like college awarded merit-based aid because it does come from a LIMITED financial aid budget that does AFFECT need-based aid negatively. More merit, means less need aid. Less merit, means more need aid. Obviously, public and private colleges that don't guarentee to meet need gap....poor or rich--that is unless a large internal (to the college) merit-award is give out.</p>
<p>Again...some here on this thread seem to think that SAT scores, as part of the data to choose internal merit-aid recipients are reliable indicators of student achievement--and thus 'merit'. The test scores which many be different for two applicants with similar HSs and other stats have different qualities and characteristics which would make one or the other more 'qualified'. AUTOMATICALLY making the ASSUMPTION that the better kid is the one with better stats (i.e. scores). I don't see too much of an uprising about NOT using the SAT, unless it it theoretical.</p>
<p>How strange it is then that on the other boards, students are counselled to not worry so much about scores, especially if they are in the 25-75%ile. Maybe I'm wrong, but there always has to be people below the range and above it.</p>
<p>Again, I'm in favor of externally earned scholarships, but not institutional merit-aid, because it necessarily is a trade-off (which benefits the college with sustained or increaded rankings) by pitting merit-aid versus need-based aid kids.</p>
<p>Merit aid is not simply a reward for 'middle' or 'low' income kids....it disproportionately is given to affluent kids that are at the 'top' end of the middle income range or above. That many can say with a straight face that 150k is 'middle' class ignores the reality that most Americans live in. Like the kids who are obsessing and trying to figure out how to game the system here on CC, 'middle' income parents with high EFC seem to be doing the same, ostensibly talking about simple fairness. Look at who internal (to the college) merit-aid benefits, the exact same 'class' of people who gather here on CC.</p>
<p>Now, that is surely not a shock, is it?! I recognize that characteristic, why would it be ignored by some on this thread?</p>
<p>Again, just an opinion.
IB.</p>
<p>PS--if I won 100k, would help pay off my parents higher debt/higher interest items first, then larger debt, then school--as I have most of my earning power ahead of me. My economic earning power graph has me earning more latter in life. Right now, I'm in the 'red.'</p>
<p>And, according to this thread, I should be upset that I have to pay for my education. </p>
<p>I have to admit I'm shocked you are paying for your education. I would have assumed your parents were paying for it.</p>
<p>Nope, I've been a mutual fund guy since before I could walk. Started out with gifts and allowance, then moved up, even when my parents had a modest income. That is 18 years of compounding interest. You could say that my family (nuclear and extended) helped me though, since gifts and allowance went towards college, and my parents started the fund. After I could earn income (from lemon aid stand to part-time job at 15), adding became my responsibility. Reproportioning my funds was also my responsibility, which is why I am not going to major in business. Too much stress. :)</p>
<p>The benefit is that it made me want college more...and I take it seriously. Especially since I know that some look for the easy way out. And, I don't begrudge people who qualify for need-based aid at the college I'll attend. I have had a good life so far--disappointments and success all. I'm proud to be able to afford paying my own way to a LAC.</p>
<p>Just an opinion.
IB</p>
<p>PS--even turned down a second-hand car because I worked out the cost of insurance, upkeep, and gas. Threw the money into---you got it--mutual funds.</p>
<p>Impressive IB. After 20 years of marriage, we worked our way up to the kind of salary I call middle class and you don't, finally saved a chunk of money, put it into mutual funds, and watched it go up (exciting...) then way, way down after 9/11. (did I say way down...) Maybe you ought to consider skipping college and becoming a financial advisor. Meanwhile, I still have to pay the bills, especially the big one - mortgage. Money comes in....money goes out... </p>
<p>And to all the middle class posters on this thread who were able to save enough money to send three kids to college out of pocket, more power to you. I wish I had met you sooner; maybe I could have learned the secret.</p>
<p>So, you make between 80-150k....I'd have classified 150k as affluent, since being on here, I've been schooled to see middle class as people who make 80-150k. I know a good number of people who fall around the higher end of the range. The middle class as defined here and by government are at odds.</p>
<p>The automatic investment programs are there to insure that even modest income families have a way to enter the market. You want to look at historic performance over time as well as short-term or long-term goals. And, yes...9/11 was a drag. But, then you move towards utilities, etc...and all would be okay. The trick is to get in (and out) of the market based on things you can see and have researched thoroughly (extrapolating from social norms, etc...).</p>
<p>Notice how Paris Hilton was a hot commodity for a bit???? That fizzled.</p>
<p>The key is observation. Watch how people and markets react. Even if it goes against what the majority has to say about it, sometimes doing the research does pay-off. Likewise, when people make assertions about college and merit-aid, it creates a market...which can then be harnessed for gain by individuals and corperations. USNews is perinially third to Time and Newsweek. Know what the most sold issue is? The College Rankings--ostensibly about being somewhat fair, but also banking on the frenzy that kids and parents have. It increases the stress and anxiety for all....making people, including myself, apply to way more schools than I can possibly go to.</p>
<p>It also creates somewhat simple dicotomies like the OP. Makes low-income and middle-income fight...while the affluent get most of the merit-aid. That is my objection.</p>
<p>IB,
Outside scholarships, even though awarded to high academic achievers,
also primarily go to students "with demonstrated financial need". There goes the bright middle-class student again.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Again, I'm in favor of externally earned scholarships, but not institutional merit-aid, because it necessarily is a trade-off (which benefits the college with sustained or increaded rankings) by pitting merit-aid versus need-based aid kids<<< It benefits the college if they bring in highly qualified students ? it sustains or increases its ranking ? What a strange concept ! I can't imagine a corporation daring to hire only the most qualified candidate for the job.... </p> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>And you're constant assertion that affluence = high stats = merit aid is getting annoying. There are plenty of high stats that aren't "bought", the middle class families that these kids belong to are really just making ends meet but according to the govt. their EFC = full tuition. </p>
<p>That is my objection.</p>
<p>I agree with Crazyla</p>
<p>It is a false assumption that the more affluent kids are the smartest in the schools and therefore end up getting all the merit $$ at colleges. That is patently false. The richest kids tend to be most spoiled and often are bit of "slackers" (not all, but a good many). The best students tend to be middle/upper middle.</p>