<p>santookie, my young Ohio-bound friend probably would’ve saved a bit going to SLO. His family is certainly saving quite a bit over UC costs, even with airfare factored in. They would be full-pay anywhere so yes, $20-ishk COA is quite a deal. </p>
<p>Agree that most CA kids aren’t interested in Merced; my comments were in response to comments that it’s no cheaper to live on campus and that there’s no room at state schools (which would include both UCs and Cal States) for high-stats kids.</p>
<p>Slithey - I’ve always thought potentially about tOSU. I notice there engineering is on the up and up. But the biggest scholarship besides morel is like $16k if I remember correctly. So $20k isn’t that bad. But its debateable which program would be better. I think SLO has less room to become better. While tOSU has lots of room to excel in its position. They were telling us at this college fair a year ago. That Alabama and Oregon State had seen there largest applicant pool from CA ever each succeeding year. Which to me was no surprise.</p>
<p>santookie, I’m told that TOSU is giving merit money specifically to recruit CA students. Don’t know details–I get squeamish asking friends for money particulars–so apologies for the second-handedness of the info.</p>
<p>@cptofhouse </p>
<p>"So absolutely YES, it is unfair to that group of kids. But, those kids are blessed having lived pretty upscale lives most of the time, and going to a lesser known school on scholarship or to State U is not a huge thing as compared to problems we have with parents negelecting, abusing their kids so they never even have much of a chance to be in the position to be treated so unfairly. "</p>
<p>AMEN. I don’t pity anybody earning $90,000K+ for not being able to afford college.</p>
<p>Given the chance, none of these guys would trade their situations to be in a low to poverty like income for more financial aid when it comes to college.</p>
<p>But, you see, ApTester, this small group of students compare themselves to the even smaller group of students who ge into the same school they do and do get financial aid due to their families being low income, whereas the middle/uppermiddle/upper income kids are not eligible for aid, and some those parents despite the income cannot or will not pay. The low income kids who do manage to get into colleges who do meet their need, mind you, this is a very small percentage, do not have to involve the parents at all. </p>
<p>We tend to compare ourselves to those in the same small situations we are. Not for the overalll situation. And in that small group, yes, if you have parents that are deemed able to pay and they won’t, you don’t have the same options as those kids who get the money from the school and do not have to involve the parents.</p>
<p>It’s not even that. Families in certain areas making $95,000 a year don’t have much room to save, and are expected tobefull pay at our state schools. We are reviled if we don’t save, but the only way to save is to liveas if we have significantly lower earnings. We do so, and then our entire savings is taken for tuition. Weare further punished if we space our childen a few years apart. We live the life of a family with 60,000 inearnings, only to have years of tuition payments while the neighbor with 60,000 income gets aid for their kid to attend the same school. </p>
<p>No, we’re not willing to drop our income to poverty levels, but we wouldn’t have to. But the big advantage of a higher income is a falacy. Yes we have a better life than if we earned 30,000 but not better then if we earned 60,000. That familymaking 60,000 isn’t expected to save, but we are. You could argue we will bebetter off in retirement, but we have to save for that too and will then be taxed on those earnings, plus on 85% of our social security.</p>
<p>Why can’t anyone accept that we are in fact hit hardest by financial aid policies? It is fact. Our kids will have more debt, but won’t getmore benefit from their degree. Wonder why our kids dream of HYPS? Because the get the benefits of networking and connections made at those schools for the same price as our state flagship (or in some cases, for less, because with profiles they consider the local cost of living rather than a generic allowance).</p>
<p>That’s just the point, life isn’t fair. Nobody is arguing that the upper middle class isn’t the hardest it. </p>
<p>It’s that you want the 90K+ income AND comparable financial aid to the family that makes less. That’s just how the system is set up, the same system which allows you to make your 90K+ income is the same system which f’s you in the arse when it comes to financial aid. </p>
<p>You want to keep the income but receive more aid. Low income families want to keep the aid, but receive more income. There just isn’t enough resources to give everyone what they want.</p>
<p>I also consider those who perhaps sporadically make $90,000, because of unusual circumstances. Our income is all over the map- it was about $45,000 when older D was applying to schools, but sometimes it is twice as much because of mandatory overtime. However, because the union goes on strike every three or four years, for as much as two or three months, we have to save for that, and because we need access to it, we don’t want it in a retirement type fund.</p>
<p>Here’s an illustration of why a certain group feels pinched in this situation. This is from the Harvard NPC, just loooking at parent income and parent contribution:</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/2ikvdso.png[/IMG]”>http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/2ikvdso.png
</a></p>
<p>^ that was interesting … but what shape would you expect? Families way at the bottom do not have money to contribute … and how much would you expect someone like Bill Gates to pay as a % of their income? While the overall shape does not surprise me I was surprised with the spike in the middle … I would expect the policies to lead to more of a hump. In essence this chart show the more you have the more you pay until you’re full pay and then the amount stay the same even as income increases … convert from raw payments to percentage of income and this shape is pretty much what you would expect.</p>
<p>That is predictable. What does one assume? Those at the top of the income scale do pay less of a percentage of income for a fixed cost. At a certain level financial aid kicks in to pay all, if there is no income.</p>
<p>The alternative is to make financial aid a percentage of income for all. That way the top of the income tower will be paying the same amount in terms of proportion.</p>
<p>But still 10% of 100K leaves less in actual dollars than the same percentage of a million. No matter what, those who have to pay and make the least, are hurt the most.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>but, Harvard seems to define “bottom” as <$80k; the line is absolutely flat until around that mark, which suggests to me that even Harvard has trouble convincing blue collar families that they are a better value than community college.</p>
<p>My expectations are not at all a significant point of discussion. The chart shows that there is a narrow band of income for which paying for Harvard requires a huge chunk of one’s income. (And the chart is gross income, so in terms of take-home pay it would peak at more like 35-40% of that.) It illustrates why that group feels squeezed by the formula. It has absolutely nothing to do with my expectations.</p>
<p>I know where we are on that graph.</p>
<p>While this graph is accurate for the Harvards and other highly-endowed Ivies of the world, the vast majority of offspring of parents with the income range discussed here ($95K/$125K AGI) attend public and non-designer private U.'s. And for need-based aid, I would estimate that full-pay at most of them begins at not much over $70-80K AGI. That’s where the percentage-of-takehome-pay crunch begins, unless you want to bring PLUS loans into the picture. </p>
<p>As I’ve said before, for a smart kid with parents in that income range, certainly there are choices, good choices too. But unless the kid has a great hook (fencing perhaps?), he might as well cross off HYPS & the like unless the parents want to go seriously into hock.</p>
<p>^^Are you assuming full pay begins at $70-$80K?</p>
<p>EFC for those earnings is far less than the $55K of schools that meet full need.</p>
<p>I would like to point out that at the vast majority of universities and colleges, full pay starts after Pell eligibility ends. Usually somewhere in the ballpark of $40k income.</p>
<p><a href=“http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/2ikvdso.png[/url]”>http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/2ikvdso.png</a></p>
<p>PS - the scaling on this graph is an unusual one also. Assuming the vertical lines represent even increments (that is a guess since they are not defined) then this representation makes the spike look much more severe than if income levels were evenly distributed along the X-axis (a typical graph).</p>
<p>
Ek, I think jnm is just referring to the typical public and non-$55K privates. </p>
<p>What this chart doesn’t take into account is those of us whose income is not the determining factor, assets are. Were we just to plot a point at EFC vs AGI on the plot it would be at about the 45% mark.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, that’s not at all true. The scale is logarithmic on the x-axis. Using a linear scale makes the spike look more severe, not less as you suggest:</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/3afk9.png[/IMG]”>http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/3afk9.png
</a></p>
![http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/2ikvdso.png[/IMG]](http://i48.tinypic.com/2ikvdso.png%5B/IMG%5D){kind=link}
![http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/2ikvdso.png[/url]](http://i48.tinypic.com/2ikvdso.png%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
![http://i48.■■■■■■■.com/3afk9.png[/IMG]](http://i48.tinypic.com/3afk9.png%5B/IMG%5D){kind=link}
