<p>^ yikes … thanks … I’ve been on CC for almost 10 years and eventually I’ll learn to spend more time before I post.</p>
<p>How about recreating both charts while only going up to about $1M in household income … then, I believe (added a hedge this time), the regular X-axis scale graph will be less sikey then the log scale … and it will cover 99+% of the families in the US. Going out to $10M squishes the picture where virtually everyone lives</p>
<p>Yes we have a better life than if we earned 30,000 but not better then if we earned 60,000. </p>
<hr>
<p>You are forgetting that you will still earn $60,000 when the college tuition bills stop. That is a very important difference.</p>
<p>Romani is correct about full pay starting where Pell eligibility ends. I would hazard a guess that this is true for the majority of schools … because most will only offer Direct Loans for those who are not Pell eligible. Yes, there are a good number of schools that offer some institutional funding to those who are not Pell eligible, but there is generally still a big gap. And there is very often a gap for those who ARE Pell eligible.</p>
<p>College costs are out of control, and really, everyone is impacted. No one wants to pay that much, even if they can.</p>
<p>Thanks Sylvan you’re probably right.
We are full pay at our instate public university. Students who don’t qualify for much merit or who are applying to schools that gap need, are going to be full pay even if they make less than six figures.</p>
<p>I’m not forgetting about income after grduation at all. Because we chose to not have kids until we could support them and ourselves, we will be close to retirement (age 64) when youngest graduates. That’s if we are not layed off before that. I guess the consolation is that we won’t miss the extra discretionary income that we never had. I mistakenly thought that working to earn a higher income meant we were entitled to a better life. Apparently it just entitles us to pay a bigger share of the cost of our kids education.</p>
<p>I’ve read over and over here that there is plenty of merit aid and low cost schools, but why should my kids be more restricted than everybody else? Isn’t that the point of striving to do better? To increase their opportunities?</p>
<p>I guess I view things differently. I consider it a privilege to be able to pay the cost of my kids’ educations. Frankly, I am well aware that it is a very few schools where kids actually get enough money to cover their costs … and the less money families make, the less able they are to contribute even a small amount of unmet need. Those who save DO increase their kids’ opportunities.</p>
<p>And yes, you were mistaken in thinking that earning a higher income meant you were entitled to a better life. Plenty of folks who earn a higher income find themselves needing money, despite how much they earn. Illness, layoff, family duties (like sick/dying parents), unforeseen expenses … these can all strike and wipe us out. Life can s**k at times, it’s not fair, etc., etc. Better to see the positive side of your life, rather than dwell on the unfairness.</p>
<p>I totally agree with yours (and my) apparently delusional thinking that striving to do better (i.e. making more $$$) does not translate in a linear fashion to more opportunities for the kids. A 70 hour work week might get you into the six figures, but then you hardly see your kids and maybe they end up directionless or worse. It has been a continuous balancing act for the past ten years.</p>
<p>But…I also agree with Kelsmom in that yes, it’s a privilege to pay for the education of my kids. I’ve never been a handout kind of guy. Granted, it will be at the expense of a good chunk of what we socked away starting 30 years ago, but that was in part why we did it. My two D’s are on their way now & it’s on them from here on out. And they appreciate it, too. We did OK in that respect.</p>
<p>Again, my main knock on the system all along has been that the Top 20 U’s have been frozen out financially for all intents and purposes to those families in that middle income/asset range.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who exactly are your kids more restricted than? The meet full need schools are almost a crap shoot so let’s take those out of the equation. Most kids of all income brackets are chasing the cheap schools or merit aid. So… who are your kids more restricted than?</p>
<p>I’ll say again that costs are ridiculous but except for the tippy top schools (which are a crapshoot to get into), very few schools are giving super aid to anyone.</p>
<p>Having a higher income restricts opportunities in terms of financial aid for college, yes sure, but you’re making it out to seem that everything HAS to go your way in life; and that’s just not how it works. </p>
<p>You have also had the opportunity to give your children a nicer neighborhood to live in, not worrying as much as your kid falling into the wrong crowd, a parent and/or parents who are more educated on the average, more access to tutors growing up, enrichment programs. The luxury of not having to worry about looking ‘poor’ in front of your friends, self-esteem issues, not having to worry about meal times. Not having to worrying about moving from house to house because your landlord jacked up your rent or defaulted on the mortgage. Less worrying about the financial stability of a household and focus more on school work or extracurricular activities. </p>
<p>You readily make the comparison that you’re better off at 60,000 than 90,000 and that you should have more in terms of financial aid.</p>
<p>But then again, you readily accept and dismiss the comparison that you’re better off at 90,000 than 30,000; and too bad too sad for those at the lower end of the income. </p>
<p>It just seems greedy to me that if you’re at the higher end of the income, you acknowledge that you have more readily available opportunities for your kids growing up; but once you get the short end of the stick, you bite back and complain that you’re not getting your ‘fair share’ of the pie. </p>
<p>I’m sorry, but MANY families are not getting their ‘fair share’ of the pie, having a higher income doesn’t entitle you EVERYTHING under the sun.</p>
<p>More restricted than other local students with similar stats but lower income. We can afford the state flagship only because weare paying off our house early. There is very little merit aidavailable, because the majority of aid is targetted for financial need. At the flagship merit aid is competitive, and limited qualification (national merit finalist or valedictorian, and still not guaranteed).</p>
<p>Aid packages at many schools include loans, so the really is just deferred payment. For most schools, are kids will end up with bigger loans, and longer to pay off, yet the same end result in potential income as the “poorer” students. </p>
<p>You saywe have the opportunity to provide a nicer neighborhood, and more opportunities, but that is a false assumption. If we had done so, we would not have had the money so save for college, and would be even more restricted in what we can afford. I do not acknowledge that my kids have more opportunities than a family at 60,000 because they don’t! I agree we should help the kid whose family makes 30,000. No problem with that. But the family making 60,000 in certain parts of the country are better off than us, yet get aid we can’t. The equations are flawed.</p>
<p>Fwiw, I just plugged in the numbers here: [Net</a> Price Calculator - Storrs Campus](<a href=“http://financialaid.uconn.edu/pricecalc/storrs/]Net”>http://financialaid.uconn.edu/pricecalc/storrs/) I was curious.</p>
<p>Family of 4, 1 in college:
60k-69k grant: 5600
90k-99k grant: 0</p>
<p>So those earning 60k seem to get about a 5.6k aid grant.</p>
<p>ETA:
Now THIS surprises me. I put in 3 in a family, 1 in college, < 30k (which was my family situation when I started college… hence my curiosity) and the estimate price after grant aid was still over 9k.</p>
<p>Things are not always fair and in every series there are clusters of unfairness. If you happen to fall into one of those clusters, it’s just too bad. I agree that there are students who cannot go to certain colleges because their families cannot or will not pay the costs, and the financial aid calculators say they can, so as deserving as those students may be, they will not get the financial aid that those students whose families come up as need will get. That is an unfair situation for that student. I agree. All the advantages and anything else positive that the student might have gotten does not mitigate that unfairness. But so it is with a lot of things in life, and I don’t see how to solve this unfairness in an affordable way. It’s up to each college to make its own financial aid policies, and some such students do manage to get money for the colleges of their choices despite not being eligible for aid. The whole admissions process is not that fair anyways. Those that the college wants and feels they need the most get accepted and each college decides how they will give money to the students they accept, again the way they feel they want to dispense it. </p>
<p>Most everyone can go to college after high school due to the the PELL, state programs, DIrect Loans and the availability of local state schools. Anyone who does not have an affordable school to which they can commute should be first in line to get additional funds. That is the base that is the most important. The rest is all gravy.</p>
<p>I’m just curious, how much more gift in aid does a student coming from a 60,000 family receive over a 90,000 family, on the average.</p>
<p>Just grants in aid, not federal loans that will have to be paid back later on. Obviously one could argue that not having access to federal loans prevents one from going to a select college, but then again, if you’re in the $90,000+ range, you would be able to secure outside loans for your students because you’re more readily qualified to co-sign and be accepted for a loan.</p>
<p>^ At UConn, 5.6k more in gift aid on average.</p>
<p>Where I used to work, the student whose parents earned $60,000 would get a total of $5200 in Pell and grants as a freshman. (In future years, the student might not get as much, since some of the returning student grants require a minimum GPA of 3.0.) The student whose parents earned $90,000 would not get any grants. So … the one whose parents earned less would get $5200 more … but the one who didn’t get the $5200 has parents who earned $30k more in that year. The $60k family would owe everything over the $5200, and the $90k family would owe all of the cost. I maintain that the $90k family is in a much better position to handle the costs (not that either family can easily come up with the tuition and living costs).</p>
<p>To be honest, I’m not too sure that even the better off at $60,000 versus $90,000 holds as much weight after seeing those numbers. </p>
<p>It’s $5,000 more in terms of grants in aid, a substantial amount, but not an absurd amount. Some people are making it seem like living at $60,000 is a get out of jail free card for college tuition, but really, it’s not. </p>
<p>At $60,000 you’ll receive about ~5,000 more in grants, and another ~5-7K max in federal loans, anything over this would have to be made by the family and/or student. </p>
<p>At $90,000 you won’t get the grants or the federal loans, but you’re in a better position, on the average (obviously it varies from family to family) to secure and accept outside loans. </p>
<p>To be honest, it’s not as unfair as some are making it out to seem, which is the impression that I got.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Everyone who fills out a FAFSA is eligible for the same amount of direct loans.</p>
<p>Then what’s the problem? </p>
<p>To be honest, I don’t see any significant overwhelming evidence that living on a $60,000 income is more advantageous than living on a $90,000 income. </p>
<p>You’re getting more $5,000 less in grants, equal amounts in federal loans; but you have a significant amount more in disposable income. </p>
<p>I could see the cost of living adjustments argument being made if you’re comparing $90,000 living in the Bay Area as opposed to living on $60,000 in an rural suburb…but even with that argument, I would venture to say a $90,000 is more a bi-product of living in an area of high cost rather than “earned” from worker harder or being more talented.</p>
<p>Right. Both students would get the loans.</p>
<p>Let’s say it’s a commuter school and tuition & fees add up to about $10,200/year. The $60k student gets $5200 grants; the $90k students gets $0 grants.
Cost for $60k student=$5000
Cost for $90k student=$10,200
Both students can borrow Direct Loans (up to $5500) to offset costs further:
Cost for $60k student after loans=$0 (and some left for books)
Cost for $90k student after loans=$4700
(Both students were most likely able to get $3500 sub of the $5500 total.)
Even after taxes, the $90k student’s family is still ahead of the game … can probably even continue saving for kid #2.</p>
<p>Now let’s assume it’s a stay-away school. The cost of tuition, fees, room, and board is probably about $18,200.
$60k student gets $5200 grants, $5500 loans. Student owes $7500.
$90k student gets $5500 loans. Student owes $12,700.
Both families have a lot of money to come up with, but the difference between the two families in what is owed is $5200 … and the $90k family earned $30k more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most people don’t.</p>
<p>The difference between $60K and $90K at Harvard is even smaller, $0 for the $60K family, $4200 for the $90K family.</p>