<p>I think I acknowledged that $100,000 is a more than decent income. The problem is, as I also noted, that even at that level of income, affording a top-level college education is very hard. (Who said it would be easy?) At this level, we cannot simply write a check and send our kids off to whatever school they want to attend, as some are able to do. We certainly do, however, have advantages that lower income families don't. In the meantime, I would love to see statistics regarding families with annual incomes of, say, $80,000 to $150,000, and how well those income levels are represented at $40,000 a year schools that give little merit aid. (Which is quite a few schools, according to my research.) As the coach I spoke to indicated, his school seemed quite well represented by very high and very low-income students, but not so much in the middle income range. Again, how was he defining "middle?"</p>
<p>Hindoo:</p>
<p>If he was at a LAC or private university, then middle probably means the same thing as for kids here...80-150k. Consequently, high income would be above that....and low-income would be below that. Also, most affluent families are more familiar with the "top" schools, so they tend to apply there...so wealth and income would be more obvious. LACs in general have a hard time attracting guys, and middle class kids.</p>
<p>IB.</p>
<p>well i guess i will ask- what is a top level?
More schools qualify than the ones that are very expensive and only give need based aid.</p>
<p>I know about so many more colleges and universities now- thanks to books like Loren Popes and the CC site than I did 5 years ago</p>
<ul>
<li>we were totatly new to the college process- neither my H or I had attended college- and even though after we found out that Ds iq was in the 160+ range and that college was going to have to be considered at some point- when she was a senior in high school she only applied to public schools where the only aid was merit. a very good selection of schools- 2 instate universities- 1 instate college and 1 out of state university.</li>
</ul>
<p>The school needed to be regional, because we didn't have money for transportation either for looking or for visiting.
We even had to limit the number of schools she applied to because of the application fees.
We knew some kids who had applied to twice as many schools- but we weren't looking for the most "prestigious" college that she could be admitted to, we were just looking for a good school that offered what she needed.
If we had, had more experience, we might have known that private schools may offer more financial aid- both merit and need based- that they may have jumped at the chance to enroll a student who was obviously gifted despite difficult circumstances, and that if you pass up a good fit school that has generous aid, we might be saving the $40 application fee, but also passing up thousands in educational support.</p>
<p>She ultimately decided to take a gap year- to volunteer for a program which would earn her an educational stipend that she could eventually put towards her college loans- and that gave us just a little more time to ask questions about how she could expand her college applications from 4 to 5 schools.
Our neighbor, who was from Oregon, had gone to a private school in Portland and he had said that they gave need based aid. It was close enough that we went and looked at it, and she liked it a lot, and it was added to her previous list as a "just to see".
She still was perfectly happy with her instate choice- if the private school didn't accept her/give her aid.
I think it is unfortunate, that so many place such weight on "rankings", instead of looking at what criteria are important to your decision.
We identified about 10 criteria-
location- city-suburban
size- not larger than 15,000 prefered smaller
rigor- wanted opportunties to be fairly challenging
interests of student body- prefered- liberal and environmentally aware
expense- not cost more than our EFC with aid
course selection- good science labs
offerings outside of academics- ability to use the art studio- music...
supports in the college- learning support-
food- veggie options besides salad bars ;)
housing- relatively close- not hard to find
transportation- close enough to drive to- but don't need a car once you are there
then we weighted them for importance to fit- fleshed them out a bit and had our own custom made criteria instead of using somone elses that they tweak a little every year to sell magazines.
If you don't use the artificial constraints of someone elses criteria- you open up a lot more choices for yourself.
Perhaps if she was applying for a job on Wall street or if she was planning to be a US senator she would have had different criteria- ( but then she would have chosen to be born into a different family)
and I admit that limiting herself regionally, cut out a lot of schools- but she still found enough to apply to and be admitted at and graduate from( knock wood)- and I would recommend this method of finding your own criteria for other students- and using that to evaluate colleges instead of looking over somone elses shoulder to use what they think is important.</p>
<p>Hindoo,
You make an excellent point about families in the $80 to $150k a year category. I would go a step further and say that I believe we actually have a disadvantage, mainly due to the formulas used in FAFSA. How on earth can a family earning $100k/yr be expected to pay $40k a year for college? A bright student from such a family who has worked hard all the way through now must choose to either go into extreme debt to attend a school that will challenge them intellectually, or settle for a lesser tiered school to ease the financial burden. Meanwhile you have students with lesser academic stats getting full boats to top schools with need based money. Even some schools that offer "merit" awards require the FAFSA and take need into consideration when doling it out. Where is the incentive to excel?</p>
<p>A bright student from such a family who has worked hard all the way through now must choose to either go into extreme debt to attend a school that will challenge them intellectually,</p>
<p>This is a fallacy
one of the brightest kids we know- (she got a 1400 on the old SAT when she was in 6th grade!) attended an instate public school- not only because of money- but because they had an excellent honors program</p>
<p>or settle for a lesser tiered school to ease the financial burden
You know what I think about dividing schools into "tiers" ;)</p>
<p>Meanwhile you have students with lesser academic stats getting full boats to top schools with need based money</p>
<p>Dont we often find that "stats" are another way of saying economic priviledge?
A student with less income- without an opportunity to attend well equipped suburban schools- but who still does well enough to be admitted to a school that only gives need based aid- is probably considered by the school to be a student who can really benefit from their resources.</p>
<p>Where is the incentive to excel?</p>
<p>If the student isn't interested in academics and in taking advantage of educational opportunities for their own sake- then I wonder if college is really the right "next step".</p>
<p>Crazy:</p>
<p>Almost all needy students have to choose between debt or settle for a 'lesser' school with better aid...even if they apply to a college that guarentees to meet need, part of their package at most schools automatically include loans and work-study.</p>
<p>And, depending on income and assets, a family earning $100,000 a year may or may not be expected to pay for the full cost of their undergraduate education. So asserting that students with lesser stats get full rides....is neccessarily untrue and relys on a false premise. Stats except for performance in HS, taking the hardest curriculum in relation to ones peers, etc...are to some extent more important than test scores. And, I hope you're not suggesting that those scores are not culturally or fiscally biased--seeing as more affluent and 'middle class' families can spend money on private counselors, private schools, private tutors, and private test companies.</p>
<p>Igonoring Sybbie's and Emeraldkity's explainations of the differences between aid policies, seems to have been ignored. Again, merit-aid disproportionately is given to affluent students. And, since merit-aid and need-aid are part of the same financial aid budget...increasing merit-aid decreases need-aid. How does re-distributing need-aid to merit-aid motivate low-income kids to excel despite their current circumstances?</p>
<p>Just an opinion.
IB</p>
<p>"And, I hope you're not suggesting that those scores are not culturally or fiscally biased--seeing as more affluent and 'middle class' families can spend money on private counselors, private schools, private tutors, and private test companies."</p>
<p>Affluent perhaps, middle class? This is just an ridiculous generalization. Never spent a dime on tutors, private schools, counselors, test companies, etc. Some kids do work hard on their own at public schools taking the most challenging coursework that is offered to them. But so what if it isn't going to be rewarded, all because Mom and Dad make 90K/yr and are being told they can afford $45k/yr for college. Perhaps we should quit our average paying jobs and maybe one of us get on unemployment and the other get a low paying job so D won't be saddled with 200k of loans in 5 years. Seems to work for lots of people.</p>
<p>Seriously, there are two sides to this issue, but I am amazed at the generalizaitons that are made regarding middle income situations. And the overtone of poor, deserving, low income kids that have no opportunities. Is the only way to help these kids by taking away opportunities from another group of kids?</p>
<p>I have little sympathy for families with incomes in the $100,000 area bemoaning the fact that they are not able to afford the $40,000/yr cost of a private college education. Assuming that there was not a sudden leap in income or some unforseen financial trevail, they have had 18+ years to save for their childrens education. </p>
<p>Until recently our family wages never exceeded $120,000 yet we were able set aside $76,000 in a UGM account by the time he was ready for college. We also have an investment portfolio which is now worth a bit in excess of $2,000,000(I would guess about $200,000+/- of that was from our parents' estates which we inherited 15 & 13 years ago) of which 60% is in IRA/401k accounts which I started investing in with an IRA contribution of $750 in Feb,1978!</p>
<p>I am giving you a lot of detail not to brag, but to illustrate that having a LONGTERM investment plan will reap enormous rewards through the "magic" of compounding. Waiting 5,10,15 years to save for your kids' education is too late. It limits the freedom of choices available to you and your children.</p>
<p>My concerns go directly to the original topic of this thread, merit awards. I feel that bright, hard-working students in middle class families have a disadvantage in being able to attend the college of their choice because many don't offer merit aid. Yet a less bright, hardworking lower income student has the opportunity to go to an ivy full boat.</p>
<p>And originaloog your comments really assume alot, ie, that there hasn't been a long term savings plan in the works, etc. $76,000 is great, but it's basically a year and a half at a top school, do you have a second child to worry about?</p>
<p>I also know bright kids who attended state public colleges and survived to tell the tale. I was one of them. True, you make what you will out of your college experience, wherever you end up going, but some situations are simply better than others. My state college was a huge, sterile factory of a school, with gigantic classes filled with a large number of unmotivated students, and with teaching assistants overseeing most of the smaller groups. I was too immature at age 18 or 19 to make the most of the academics offered--I tended to disappear toward the middle or back rows of these huge gatherings, never asked a question, never spoke to a professor. Sports fanatacism was rampant on campus and the frat system dominated. Finding a niche of bright, bookish kids was not impossible, but it sure wasn't easy. For this reason, I've encouraged my girls not to look at the big public state colleges, but at LACs where student-to-teacher ratios are much smaller. ... I do agree that "official" rankings are vastly over-rated. A "top" school is really what each individual defines as one, depending upon their own wants and needs.</p>
<p>originaloog brings up a point that has long fascinated me. Inherited wealth. Those who enjoy it often seem oblivious to the reality that it is not a universal perk. My eyes were really opened when I learned how many families at my kids' private schools had their students' tuition paid by grandparents. I suddenly understood why these much younger parents with lower level careers were able to live at such a higher standard of living than we were.</p>
<p>I once read a wise commencement speaker's comment that "compound interest it the 8th wonder of the world." Inheriting $200,000 and having 12-15 years to let it grow would be my magic wand wish for every family in the country! Certainly it does take discipline to set such funds aside for educational use and that is both honorable and admirable, but some of us are of that ruffian class, raised by wolves who never accrued enough wealth to leave us any. </p>
<p>If you don't start out with that $200,000 to save, it's harder to reach those educational goals. Add to that the unfortunate -- or fortunate -- depending on your pov, families who live in areas where you can't buy a house for under $1.3 million. You can easily make $120,000 a year, eat a lot of mac and cheese and still not have enough in the change jar to send junior to college.</p>
<p>The obvious answer, of course, is then to leverage your house to the hilt, which is what I assume most families do. Is that a wise or even safe trade-off in the long run? Keep your fingers crossed on the economy. Our plan was to sell the house outright to meet the college expenses, because what little savings we had been able to accrue had been swallowed up by the college costs for H's two children from a previous marriage. </p>
<p>In our case, what amounted almost to divine intervention made that step unnecessary, but I know there are plenty of hard-working families out there whose need goes unmet because the definition of need assumes a one-size fits-all formula in a country with vast regional housing and cost-of-living distinctions.</p>
<p><<< How on earth can a family earning $100k/yr be expected to pay $40k a year for college? >>></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>And you think that families that make...say $50,000 before taxes are doing better??? Wow. Never mind that state schools usually don't guarentee to meet need (even community colleges), AND you think, at the same time, that there are so many low-income kids that can get into the most selective schools which guarentee to meet need that merit-aid would be the answer???</p>
<p>You see the % of Harvard undergrads that come from families that make less than $40,000 a year. Yeah...how are those kids are taking away from middle class kids who have had more options, and are characterized as less qualified?! Jeez...look at the statistics for income at the better schools....look at the percentage that pay full cost without aid.</p>
<p>Please, everyone thinks they're middle-class for arguements sake...but if you ask a sociologist....fewer are statistically middle-income. Talk about dissonase to make one feel better. Talk about self-justification.</p>
<p>IB.</p>
<p><<< I have little sympathy for families with incomes in the $100,000 area bemoaning the fact that they are not able to afford the $40,000/yr cost of a private college education. Assuming that there was not a sudden leap in income or some unforseen financial trevail, they have had 18+ years to save for their childrens education. >>></p>
<p>I have yet to meet a family with such an income that didn't just recently start having such high incomes. Salaries were pretty stagnate for MANY of the years when we were raising our kids. It wasn't until very recently that my H has gotten some great promotions and salary increases that came along with them. For many years we prayed that the frig wouldn't break down (or the car) because we didn't have "extra money" to pay for replacements or repairs. We are not unusual. </p>
<p>It is a myth that higher earners have been higher earners for years.</p>
<p>isleboy:</p>
<p>Such a family wouldn't have a high EFC... THAT is the point.</p>
<p>Why don't you get off that island and come to the mainland so we can each give you a quarter to buy yourself a clue.</p>
<p>The point is that....EFC does not necessarily mean that need will be met, or that low-income kids are shomehow lucky or less qualified.</p>
<p>I dunno- maybe because I never expected anything from anyone- been on my own since I was 17 and raised my kids without alot of involvement from either side of grandparents that I don't see an education to an "elite" school as a "reward" that is either earned or not earned.</p>
<p>As I said- we are not low income & we didn't have "prestige" as a criteria when looking at higher ed-which allowed us to consider a larger number of appropriate schools.</p>
<p>If you * are* interested in using "prestigous" as a main criteria when choosing schools- then you are going to have to place other things such as "affordability" much farther down- particulary if you have made the decision that your EFC is unrealistic.
( families who earn much more than $100,000 have recieved need based aid-depending on circumstances and assets- so while income is very important- it is not the only thing that is considered)</p>
<p>When selecting schools to put on your list & prestige is a factor- you also have to think about what that means to you.
Is it prestige within the larger community? A school that everyone would recognize the name as a good school? ( keep in mind that if many of these schools did not have graduate programs- their name would not be half as well known)</p>
<p>Or are you interested in a school that has a prestigious sports program? Has Noble winning lecturers or perhaps well known playwrights?
The sorts of schools that Joe Blow might consider prestigous, are likely to be very different than the schools that top university professors would consider for their own kids.
Some of those schools you might not have heard of- Macalester or Carleton for example- even Swarthmore and Uchicago many don't think about when they think about top schools.
Some of the public schools are well known to the CC community- but because they are public, may not be held in as high esteem by someone who is looking for "prestige". U Michigan Ann Arbor for instance- or U Wisconsin - Madision, or too many of the California schools to list.</p>
<p>Particulary several of the womens colleges- have been known to offer very nice aid packages to students- that I was very surprised qualified for aid .
I realize that kids especially may box themselves in- and only want to consider schools they have heard people talking about.
They can be immature and quick to dismiss schools because of something somone said in passing" its a party school" or " the dorms are ugly", without seeing for themselves.</p>
<p>THis is where parents have to step in- and help them find a school that is a good fit for them, where they can do well, where they can be challenged and where the amount of loans won't restrict what they do after graduation.
US News * can be* very helpful. I particulary like the info about the amount of * student* loans, people graduate with.</p>
<p>If money is a concern- as it is to most people- then that is a figure that you will want to look at. Just because a school offers merit aid- does not make it a "bad" school, or unworthy of your child. On the contrary- offering merit aid means that they have the resources to do so, that they feel that academically competitive students have something to offer their school and they are willing to offer financial enticements to encourage them to attend.</p>
<p>Who is really getting shafted are students who might have an EFC of $7,000 or so, but don't come close to being admitted to a school that meets 100% of need.
Many schools gap and might offer them $2,000 in aid, or nothing.
They might not qualify for merit aid, but they can't even afford a state school without help. These are the students who haven't had the opportunity to be as prepared as students who come from a "richer"( I am not talking about income) background, but still have the desire and drive to attend college. Families still aren't always aware of how career opportunities can be driven by education.A teen without parents to guide them, might not get engaged in their own education till junior or senior year of high school.
There is a lot of disportionality out there. The opportunities they had in elementary school, determine the classes they took in middle school, and what they were able to acheive in high school.
So if we are discussing "opportunities" being taken away by one group and given to another- perhaps we should first take a look at K-12 education, and at students who aren't given the support they need to graduate , let alone attend college
<<<<<warming up="" for="" board="" meeting="" tonight="">>>>>>>>></warming></p>
<p>Jlauer95:</p>
<p>Wow....and I thought WA state was part of the Continental United States. May be you should read:</p>
<p>The Big Test
The Promised Land
The Shape of the River
Nickel & Dimed
The New Ruthless America</p>
<p>OR</p>
<p>Sybbie's many posts on the subject
Emeralkity's many posts on the subject</p>
<p>Etc....</p>
<p>And that was way adult to insult a teenager because you do not like what was said. BTW, did you know that the majority in the US are non-URMs, and that I could be put in my place by the majority due to sheer numbers??? </p>
<p>Keep 'em down--because they are inferior and get full rides, huh?!</p>
<p>Talk about showing your true colors.
IB.</p>
<p>PS--BTW, I did not get a full ride, or am what would be considered 'middle-class' since my parents make a decent amount.</p>
<p>PPS--Hear of the Automatic Investiment Option for mutual funds? That's how some of my low-income friends and relatives invest...$50-200 a month.</p>
<p>PPPS--And some of my friends and relatives do live in high cost HI and make less than $60,000...you think that they get a break using either the FAFSA or CSS??? Please....only at Harvard, and that is assuming they'll get in.</p>
<p>emeraldkity - I don't know where "prestige" entered this discussion. Just because a student wants to get into as good an academic situation they they deserve to get into, doesn't mean they are looking for prestige. I am talking about rewarding bright students and not penalizing them because of their family's income. And again, I 'm not talking about affluent families with the summer home and luxury cars, I'm talking about the average 2 parent working, 2 or 3 kids, modest house family that are being told they can afford full scholarship to a 40k plus a year school. We are not fortunate enough to have a great state school with honors program option. Let's stop bringing off topic subjects into the discussion such as prestige - we could care less about prestige.</p>
<p>Let's suppose that parents made enough money that if they had made good investments over the course of 18 years they would have saved enough to pay for their child's college education. What if they made some poor choices in investments and no longer even have the money that they originally invested? Apparently we don't want to penalize the children of low income parents (who in many cases make less money because of poor choices that they've made), but see no problem penalizing the children of middle income parents for their poor decisions.</p>