<p>Middle class seems to be where the inequity lies. Kids next door to each other with the same lifestyle have very different EFCs. Everyone agrees that society benefits from providing financial aid to the poor. But does society benefit from providing financial aid to the middle class? Is it written somewhere that anyone should be able to attend any school to which they are acccepted? Middle class kids don't NEED to go to Ivy League schools. I vote for meeting 100% need for poor and providing merit scholarships for middle class. But then this isn't up for vote.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That's a tough one. I had always assumed our family was middle income, but maybe I was wrong. Our home is on the modest fringe of a fairly affluent area, and we live very differently in relation to those around us. I imagine that some families who seem affluent (to me) may carry more debt than we do--and therefore, qualify for need-aid, whereas we don't. I realize that our family is much better off than many others are, but even so, we're still facing that frustrating college conundrum: not affluent enough to where expense is no object; not poor or indebted enough to qualify as "needy;" yet, totally and completely unable to afford the cost of most top liberal arts colleges without being crushed by debt. Especially since many of these schools are very tight with merit aid. (We're fairly "geriatric" parents in our 50s, so assuming a couple hundred thousand in new loans--maybe more--to send two girls to school for four years at virtually the same time, is not a real option. Neither is selling our house, draining our retirement accounts, or panhandling.) Fortunately, our older daughter, who starts college in the fall, has received some good merit offers at lower tier schools. Not her top choices, but she'll get a good education. The other will hopefully be a National Merit Finalist, which will help. A bit.</p>
<p>Jack--many state schools charge OOS students enough that they have a substantial "profit" from them that helps fund the underfunded instate students and lots of other things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you. There's no way to ever make everything completely fair for all, but to me this makes the most sense to me. There will always be those people that will find loopholes in the system, but there's only so much tuition assistance to go around. There needs to be a better way to get aid in the hands of students who need it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Problem is, a lot of good schools don't give much merit aid at all. Or they give it in such tiny increments that it's a mere drop in the ocean of college expenses. I also agree that middle class kids, no matter how bright or talented, don't need to go to Ivy League schools, or even non-Ivy top-tier LACs. They're not entitled to anything--just to get along with whatever their parents can manage to afford for them, or to find a second/third-tier LAC(or state school) that's less expensive or more generous with merit aid. (Yes, I'm bitter, in an admittedly irrational sort of way.) The way things are now, I really believe that bright middle class kids have fewer options than do bright kids from affluent or poor families. That's only my humble opinion.</p>
<p>I imagine that some families who seem affluent (to me) may carry more debt than we do--and therefore, qualify for need-aid, whereas we don't.
Usually debt is not considered- it is mainly income- however if you have had unusual medical expenses- are supporting an elderly parent etc- those expenses* may* be also taken into account</p>
<p>yet, totally and completely unable to afford the cost of most top liberal arts colleges without being crushed by debt.</p>
<p>Few people can
However there are many alternatives as your family has found to spending a years income for many families on one year of college.</p>
<p>The way things are now, I really believe that bright middle class kids have fewer options than do bright kids from affluent or poor families. That's only my humble opinion.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Perhaps we are more comfortable with bright middle class kids have fewer options than bright kids from affluent families because we are used to it. It is true for everything (private high school, nice cars, vacations). Perhaps we are less comfortable when bright poor kids have more options than bright middle class kids but we understand and accept it. When some other bright middle class kid has more options than my bright middle class kid that it stings.</p>
<p>I think the sting comes from where the money comes from, i.e. private vs. tax-supported sources. I don't think that most people have a problem with those who have resources generously giving to whomever they wish. What some people do have a problem with is being forced to give something to others that we can't afford to provide for ourselves or our own children.</p>
<p><but what="" is="" a="" normal="" sized="" home?="" are="" expenses?="" if="" median="" income="" in="" the="" us="" $43,000="" i="" don't="" think="" we="" can="" say="" that="" 4="" x="" still="" middle="" no="" matter="" where="" you="" live="" or="" consider="" "normal"-="" upper="" maybe="" high="" col="" area,="" but="" know="" people="" who="" have="" moved="" out="" of="" our="" because="" they="" just="" can't="" afford="" it="" anymore="">></but></p>
<p>That's the rub, which is why it can't be defined. Obviously a family with 4 kids needs to have a larger home than a family with 1 kid. </p>
<p>I don't think anyone who makes 4 times 43K (172K) is considered by anyone as being "middle class" -- perhaps "lower uppper class". Or in some very expensive areas of the country - "upper middle class". It is very hard to use strict income to determine.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>It is very hard to use strict income to determine.<<<<</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>So exactly what do you go on, trying to be fair?</p>
<p>The friends I have who applied to colleges with merit-aid were very generous to them actually. Some of my friends were of lower income (although not below $70,000) and some were on the high end ($250,000 and up). Fair? Not exactly. I'm okay with my friends who get merit aid with parents who make closer to the low end than the high end. But giving merit aid (ranging from $7,500-15,000) seems a little excessive for the others. Also, a few of my wealthier friends knew which colleges fill some of their class with those that can pay full cost. And, of course, those were some of the schools which they applied to.</p>
<p>So, my wealthier friends benefitted two ways. As for my friends who were closer to the 43k figure for income, they were at least aware (or made aware) that they needed to apply to a couple of colleges that guarenteed to meet need. They mostly stayed away from schools like NYU, Boston College, Boston University, and most state schools except for their own. For RD friends, Carleton and Smith were iffy as well.</p>
<p>Does aid affect where you go, or limit chocies? Of course it does, whether it is by its aid policies or by how competitive admissions are. If you need significant aid, why would you knowingly apply to more than a couple of schools that either do not guarentee need or give out little merit-aid? Applying does have a cost component.</p>
<p>Yes, there are some good colleges and universities that do not meet need. They also are sometimes hot schools. But, you know that going in (at least those who are middle class or above). Why are you surprized by gap packages, et...?</p>
<p>Like I said before, if non-affluent types were the primary beneficiaries of the merit aid, I'd have less of a problem with it. However, it does not. Need based policies, which affect those who need help for college are affected by merit aid, usually negatively. That is why I object.</p>
<p>IB.</p>
<p><<< The friends I have who applied to colleges with merit-aid were very generous to them actually. Some of my friends were of lower income (although not below $70,000) and some were on the high end ($250,000 and up). >>></p>
<p>I'm not saying that it "never happens" but usually kids from families making 250K and up, who also have stats high enough to get high merit awards, end up choosing "higher tier" colleges and therefore do not end up accepting/using the merit money. (What I mean is that these richer kids are applying at these merit schools as "safeties" but end up actually going elsewhere. Remember, that many merit awards are automatically awarded -- no separate application is made. The award comes with the acceptances.) </p>
<p>For instance, my "wealthy" cousin's kids are both NMF. They applied to Ivies (and were accepted). but they also applied at several "matches" and safeties and were awarded merit $$$ because of stats and NMF status. However, both went to the ivies and never took the merit $$. This happens all the time with kids from well-heeled families.</p>
<p>Jlauer95:</p>
<p>That was not the case with most of my friends. A good number chose to go where the money was. That is merit-aid. Some went to NYU, some to BC, some to Johns Hopkins, Carleton, Smith, Vanderbilt, UMichigan, Tulane, UNC-Chapel Hill, UW-Seattle, UVA, Wash U, BU, etc...some turned down Ivies and LACs in the top 20.</p>
<p>Does not happen as often as you think, just a myth for the most part, unless you're talking about the really wealthy who had all the perks to do well, in comparison to other less affluent kids. BTW, I do attend a private HS, so it is definately a topic of conversation.</p>
<p>IB,</p>
<p>PS--those friends with lower stats, who could pay also chose schools where they knew that ability to pay can be a tip factor (for instance, Brown).</p>
<p>Any student who is given a merit award from a selective college most likely had to work very hard to receive it. Also, the college that awarded it obviously thinks that that student would be a valuable addition to their school. So why would it be wrong for them to accept it, no matter how much money their parents make? In a company, they dont decide that the CEO is too wealthy and that they need to give his salary to the janitor who makes less, though some might argue that they should! Even in a relatively well-off family, resources are limited, and if that student is able to use money that he would have had to use on his education to travel, buy a house, or give to a favored charity, I think thats great.</p>
<p>Of course it's deemed okay by many (usually those who belong in that category) for a full paying kid getting a tip in admissions. Yep, developmental candidate...future donor. So why the merit money for performace in standardized measures? Because they had money to start with to afford all the counselors, prep courses, private schools, etc...??? It does not seem fair, does it?</p>
<p>Education is not like a business, although it has become more so since the late 1990's. Look at it historically. Businesses are primarily out for profit, while educational institutions are ostensibly about educating for society--or that's the idea anyway. Those goals are not mutually exclusive, BTW. By increasing access to college for a larger portion of the population, the resultant job pool will be better educated and more productive, which does impact business and the standard-of-living in a positive way.</p>
<p>The problem is that most think that it is okay for affluent kids to get merit-aid when they do not need it. Merit-aid necessarily detracts from need based aid, unless it is external to the school (i.e. outside scholarship). The shift to merit-aid was to maintain or gain in the rankings, rather than educate those with ability but not the means to recieve a college education.</p>
<p>Affluent kids??? Yeah, we can have our parents donate money and use that as a tip factor...never mind that we already, disproportionately, benefit from legaciy status, and standardized testing. Work? Hardly. We already know how to play the game, so to speak.</p>
<p>Just ask my parents...Ivy educated and concerned with status rather than cost. Must be nice for them (and you'd think me) to not have to worry about sticker price. To get merit-aid would not make a difference to them because no other schools would be good enough. Yet, at the same time, some of my friends do need to consider cost, and are locked out at schools that do not guarentee to meet need.</p>
<p>Just my experience.
IB</p>
<p>Yet, at the same time, so of my friends do need to consider cost, and a re locked out at schools that do not guarentee to meet need.</p>
<p>Aye theres the rub
My oldest daughter is at a school that only gives need based aid- but they cover 100% of the remainder after EFC & because she had enough foresight to earn an education stipend before she entered- she will graduate with few loans
My younger daughter likely will not be able to be admitted to a school that meets 100% of need- those are quite a bit more competitive- instead she will probably either attend a school that gaps- forcing us and her to take out more loans than we are comfortable with- or attend an instate school/one that participates in the western state exchange program.
But we will still have choices and have lots of time to research options.</p>
<p>Em:</p>
<p>It does get frustrating for me as well. I have friends that are far brighter than I am who happen to need lots of aid, but some of them were gapped and will go to UW, TESC, WSU, etc...</p>
<p>It's funny, but I don't think that many CCers have practical experience with the problems that face most households when it comes to cost of an education. I feel for my friends, and it's hard to talk openly with some of them about the situation because it gets sticky. They worked hard, without many of the benefits I've had, and come away feeling depressed. And, they can point to more affluent kids who get merit-aid with similar numbers. Schools in which they have been gapped for aid purposes or waitlisted.</p>
<p>Good luck with the search. I'm sure everything will turn out great. :)</p>
<p>Your kids are lucky to have you as a resource.
IB.</p>
<p>From the perspective of a child from a wealthy family who has had every privilege, who feels that his admittance to college was a result of his parents' donations and for whom money is no object, perhaps it seems like every student who receives merit rather than need-based aid is in the same boat. A cursory reading of the posts on this board should shatter that notion. I would venture a guess that the majority of the students who receive only merit aid have worked extremely hard to earn the award that they were given (most without private counselors and private schools). I really don't believe that schools are more likely to give a student a merit scholarship because his parents are wealthy. I would guess that the reverse is true, though he may have an edge in admissions. My point is that these students work very hard for top scholarships, and most are fully deserving of their rewards.</p>
<p>Need-based aid and merit aid serve two distinctly different purposes, and for most schools both are important.</p>
<p>IB,</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some went to NYU, some to BC, some to Johns Hopkins
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These schools all claim that they provide for 100% of financial need. Each has either no or very limited merit aid. Tulane, BU, WUStL and UNC have significant merit aid programs, i.e. Tulane awards roughly 34% of its students merit aid.</p>
<p>With tht said, it does not mean they do not preferentially package their financial aid awards.</p>
<p>
<p>These schools all claim that they provide for 100% of financial need. Each has either no or very limited merit aid. Tulane, BU, WUStL and UNC have significant merit aid programs, i.e. Tulane awards roughly 34% of its students merit aid.</p>
<p>With tht said, it does not mean they do not preferentially package their financial aid awards.
</p>
<p>During my daughter's college search, when we first came across the phrase "will meet 100% financial need" we were thrilled. I naively assumed this meant we might qualify for at least some help, until I learned how narrowly "need" is apparently defined. It was magically determined that our family of four (with income of less than $110,000 and two in college by 2007) had zero "need," and that we were fully capable spending $40,000 or more annually for her to attend the schools she was initially interested in. OK, I can understand that. Families with less than we have should be getting the need-based money, but that doesn't negate the fact that at our income level and even with our college savings, the expense for most good non-state colleges would be prohibitive without incurring enormous debt. Since need money was a no-go, merit aid was a necessity to bridge at least some of the financial gap. Our daughter has an exemplary academic record, grades, APs, test scores, extracurriculars, etc. She went ahead and applied to several top LACs, to which she was admitted and received impressive sounding scholarships--"Distinguished Academic Award," etc., etc., but these were relatively small and only lowered the overall cost from "Completely Impossible" to "Probably Impossible." Fortunately, she also applied to lesser-known safeties, which ended up offering significant merit aid that brought the cost down to where it was manageable. Whew! She'll end up at one of those and will undoubtedly (hopefully) be happy and well-educated. Merit aid was a God-send for us; without it, even at our income level, a non-state school would have been impossible without incurring crushing debt for the rest of our natural days. (We're older parents.) This whole financial aid thing still has me scratching my head. No self pity, just puzzlement.</p>
<p>Saying they meet 100% of need, is not the same as GUARENTEEING to meet need.</p>
<p>Subtle but clear distinction.</p>