<p>The trick is for the $90K families to live like they make $60k. It would do well for a lot things, not just having money for college.</p>
<p>Geez, cpt, does that mean we should SAVE? How’s that been working for us? Unless you want those savings to sit like a lox & earn nothing, you have to take a little risk–with your kids’ college money, which we were told NOT to do. Dog chasing its tail. </p>
<p>My income has fluctuated somewhat over the years and it seems no matter what is earned, most of what’s extra goes toward something necessary for my kids. Since they got into their teenage years, savings have been somewhat of a pipe dream.</p>
<p>I do not doubt that the family making $90K with no aid is in a better place overall than the folks with $60K and $5700 aid–the numbers seem to bear this out. But speaking to the ‘unfairness’ question of aid granted based on income/assets, it’s more the curiousness of the correlation between Top 20 privates’ constantly rising COA affecting its bottom-line affordability to middle incomers.</p>
<p>Case in point, true story. D was in top 3% academically in HS, many EC’s, great test stats. We thought initially that the Ivies or Top 20’s were a possibility, until we put a pencil to it and saw that pretty much across the board at these establishments there would be no merit aid, and because of our middle-income status range, little if any meaningful need-based aid would be forthcoming either. A $52K/year COA maybe down to $47K/year? Not nearly enough to make it happen. So she didn’t apply, we couldn’t let her do it for fear that she MIGHT be accepted! It worked out OK, of course, as these things usually do when you plan in advance with much help from CC. We told her well before the fact what the situation was, she loves her school & that’s that.</p>
<p>But another girl in D’s HS, with lesser stats, fewer EC’s, coming from a single-parent home thus with far less income, a tiny EFC I’m sure, not only applied but was accepted into one of those Top 20’s no problem. Not sure about the aid she received but the U’s website pretty much spells it out–it had to be substantial. We are truly happy for her but scratch our head at times thinking, what did WE do wrong? I’m thinking nothing but we were simply subject to the weird nuances of the present system.</p>
<p>Before your kids are born, you start socking it away thinking one day he/she will go to Harvard, Princeton, Northwestern, etc., and you will make it happen financially. Then you realize that although you did the right things, the sights had better be set lower. Certainly it’s better than not being able to afford college at all for your kid, and I’m thankful for that, but I can’t help but think that the system has gotten out of whack.</p>
<p>
We also fall into that “hole” between rich and middle where our EFC is very much higher than we can actually justify paying. But here’s the thing. We DO have a nice home in the suburbs, nice cars, an annual vacation, two big hungry dogs, private hs for our son, part-time employment for myself, renovations on the house, and probably a lot of other things that people in the $60K range DON’T have. And you probably have a lot of those “things” as well. </p>
<p>Could we afford our EFC if we moved to a small cape or ranch, got old beater cars, both worked full time, sent S to public school, and all that? No doubt. But we are not willing to do those things because it’s OUR lives that we are living as well. We work hard to provide better lives for our entire family, not just to provide Harvard for our kids.</p>
<p>So when you are thinking about how the situation is somehow not fair, think about everything you have that your money has allowed you to buy or do. If you are not willing to remove all those benefits from your life, then it’s like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. How is that unfair?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, as far as you know, the kid could be in debt up to her eyeballs since her parent saw the name of the school and said going there is worth any price.</p>
<p>The top schools often don’t offer merit but they do meet full need.
As long as the family can afford their EFC, the student could attend.
But that is what the bickering is about, whether the EFC is affordable for those schools that meet full need, and how large the gap is between schools that don’t meet full need or offer much merit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What extra ‘necessities’ do you have to pay over and above what someone from a lower income is paying? Buying your kids new clothes with brand name “north face” logos on them isn’t a necessity, if you can’t save enough for college and you believe college is important, adjust accordingly. If they were truly ‘necessities’, then obviously you should understand that if you’re feeling the pinch, someone from a lower income is feeling the pinch that much more. You can argue nickles and dimes, but when it comes down to it, the system isn’t as charlatan as you make it out to be. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which also means that the daughter grew up in a single parent household. Do you even know how hard it is growing up in a low income family, let alone one with a single parent? Before you complain that you’re getting treated unfairly, try to put yourself in that persons WHOLE situation before you become envious of a small facet of their situation. </p>
<p>To be honest, just because your nominal income is higher than others, it doesn’t make you any better than somebody or entitle you to have EVERYTHING better/more than someone from a lower income. You obviously have a better life with your higher income in terms your basic so called “necessities”, but you also want to have the easier ride when it comes to college.</p>
<p>You said you’ve “worked hard” to provide a good life for your children, maybe you just didn’t work hard enough to cover ‘everything’ you believe yourself entitled to.</p>
<p>Also, single parents get really screwed over in EFC formulas. That’s one of the major updates FAFSA needs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only people who can choose college without restrictions are the very smart/lucky/talented/famous with very wealthy families. Full stop, period. Everyone else is restricted in some way.</p>
<p>You certainly have more options than someone who makes LESS than you do. They have no choice but to chase the best financial offer possible, the best fit possible is a secondary consideration if they are lucky enough to have more than one affordable choice.</p>
<p>And if you think poorer kids don’t have loans in their packages I can tell you with authority that you are absolutely wrong. No-loan financial aid is extremely rare.</p>
<p>I was in earlier and then my account got locked because of the email problem (I tried to reset my account and the email problem meant that I never received the reset email). It has been pretty interesting reading through this thread along with the things that people are living through.</p>
<p>Case in point, true story … because of our middle-income status range, little if any meaningful need-based aid would be forthcoming either. A $52K/year COA maybe down to $47K/year? </p>
<hr>
<p>For real??? Maybe I am misunderstanding. Do you mean that your EFC was in this range? Ummmmmm … I am at a loss for words.</p>
<p>NO, Kelsmom, our EFC wasn’t even close to that, WAY below that. Do the math based on the income range that was stated upthread.</p>
<p>I knew this post would cause some flak. I KNOW how hard single parents have to work. I did NOT know that single parents get screwed on their EFC–that’s something that is wrong with the system as well.</p>
<p>APTester–you are taking this much too personally. All I am saying, the main issue I have had with the system all along, is that the Top 20’s, the gateways to success, so they say (although I don’t necessarily believe that) is out of reach financially to many middle incomers. That’s all, period, full stop. </p>
<p>Entitlements?! Better than someone else?! Please. As I’ve said, I don’t look for handouts. I work like heck, pay my taxes, save when I can. We deal with the cards that are dealt us, just like the 60K incomers, the 40K incomers, and the 25K incomers do the same. But don’t begrudge me for voicing an opinion on the structure of the system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then, for clarity, why are you upset about about not getting much, if any, FA?</p>
<p>Not upset about no FA, just wondering why the cost of the Top 20’s is out of the reach of middle incomers. Certainly, they could lower the cost, but with–for the time being–a demand exceeds supply situation, that cost will not be coming down anytime soon.</p>
<p>Even IF they lowered the cost, the odds of getting into those schools are a crap shoot. </p>
<p>And if your EFC is lower than 47k and we’re talking about a top 20 school, you’re likely to get more than 5k in aid.</p>
<p>Our income was over six figures last year but our EFC was around $24,000.
This is a tad over the COA for an instate public school, but well under the COA for a private that meets 100% of need.
A family that is full pay for one of the schools that only offers need based aid, has an EFC about double what we have and likely is well into six figures of income instead of barely.
:)</p>
<p>You claim to know how hard these single-parents work for their kids, so why can’t they for once in their life have this one opportunity that you don’t have? </p>
<p>You’re pointing your fingers and making your points with the wrong individuals. It’s not the low income students fault that you’re priced out of a top 20 college, so why should it matter to you if they are able to attend a top 20 college?</p>
<p>The system is messed up, I don’t see anyone who would disagree; why should in-state tuition be priced at $13,000/year while my older cousin who graduated in the early to mid 2000’s pay around $5,000/year for their tuition? Someone decided that they could squeeze it out of students and set the bar at that level. They established a price and established the resources. </p>
<p>Should you get those resources over the single family student? That’s up to you to decide. </p>
<p>You’re comparing apples and oranges when you’re comparing yourself with a low income student. The problem isn’t giving aid to low income students, so the point shouldn’t even be brought up. (Unless of course you believe they shouldn’t get aid over yourself, to which I strongly disagree). The point of “my child” gets no aid while the low income poor girl down the street gets a ton of aid is a really bad, and to be honest, downright petty argument. </p>
<p>Instead of drawing attention to the poor students who get tons of aid while your children gets none, draw attention to the UC Regents (in my case) who have outstripped inflation by over 200%, for much the same product they were providing just half a decade ago.</p>
<p>*The system is messed up, I don’t see anyone who would disagree; why should in-state tuition be priced at $13,000/year while my older cousin who graduated in the early to mid 2000’s pay around $5,000/year for their tuition? Someone decided that they could squeeze it out of students and set the bar at that level. They established a price and established the resources. *</p>
<p>Contact your legislator.
State budgets determine the amount allocated to higher Ed. While taxes have supported state institutions in the past,in the past ten years virtually all states have had to make the decision the cut back on funding and families bear the brunt of it.
[Survey</a> shows unwillingness to pay higher taxes for higher education - The Daily Californian](<a href=“http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/16/survey-shows-unwillingness-to-pay-higher-taxes-for-higher-education/]Survey”>http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/16/survey-shows-unwillingness-to-pay-higher-taxes-for-higher-education/)</p>
<p>ek, our state legislators are more than useless. They’re more concerned with making sure state funds don’t accidentally do anything with stem cell research than with any kind of funding increase. </p>
<p>Hell, they couldn’t even decide multiple years in a row whether or not to fund a “promise” scholarship (that covers a whopping one credit hour with a little left over) until about November of each of those years. </p>
<p>It’s sad. Really sad. And in the time I spent as a Senate intern, we never had a single call about educational reform. (But we had a crazy lady call us about tasers every day…)</p>
<p>I don’t know what the answer is, but I doubt it will come from the legislator. At least not here. Don’t know about elsewhere.</p>
<p>Agreed, AP, that it is NOT the ‘fault’ of the low-income families that they have the opportunities to attend a Top 20 school. How could it be? They are the beneficiaries. And there are so many moving parts in this deal, different socioeconomic admission quotas at each Top 20 that must be met to keep the endowments flowing in. I get it.</p>
<p>What IS worth discussing, however, is how it got to this place and whether it can or will be changed down the road, or even whether it should be. Public U.'s, flagship or not, are being squeezed by their own states that have cut down funding, that in turn has forced them to raise in-state tuition and increase the spread between that and out-of-state costs. I’ve seen that really take place in the last five years.</p>
<p>Is this the bizarro world of a free market system? We will see as the supply-exceeds-demand colleges have to become creative to fill their seats each fall. It’ll be interesting for sure.</p>
<p>College education was never for the general masses historically, especially at the elite schools. It is in the more recent time that it has become more accessible to the general public because of FA and schools looking for more diversity.</p>
<p>American middle class believe they are entitled to own a home, 2 cars, flat screen TVs, and have all the educational options available to them. We don’t think it is strange to not be able to afford a Mercedes, but it is not fair when not everyone could afford Harvard.</p>