<p>Penn State at times does the opposite - you can attend main campus only if you agree to start during the summer. </p>
<p>Some colleges do that also for math remedial courework etc. for some URM students, so they are ready to handle regular coursework in Sept.</p>
<p>Because URM students typically can’t handle college courses?</p>
<p>I expect that what charlieschm is referring to, is summer programs that are invitation-only for selected, highly desired students who are weak in one area or another. My alma mater used to run (and may still for all I know) a summer program for certain students that it wanted who weren’t quite up to snuff in X, Y, or Z because of limitations in their high school environments. One good friend who was invited had come from a microscopic rural school district in the Northern Plains where students there were only about 25 students in the whole high school.</p>
<p>The college where I used to work had a program for URM’s that required a summer term … it was required, because the students selected for this program were chosen because they showed promise even though they came from low-performing schools. So … not that URM’s can’t do it … but this program was specifically for URM’s who might not be able to handle it, so that they could receive the support needed to be able to make it. I am pretty sure charlieschm refers to this sort of program. While there were plenty of non-URM’s who could have benefited, that is not who got to be in the program (which included scholarship money).</p>
<p>University of WI Madison has this kind of program. This year some URM were upset about being invited/forced into this program. The sentiment was that they had comparable stats to regular admitted students, but were singled out because of their minority status. In addition people were upset that they would have to cut their summer short, which some needed to use to earn money, to attend this program.</p>
<p>If the student receives a scholarship, or was admitted with low stats under a special program, it’s not the URM part that is the issue … it’s the strings attached to the money or the admission. Of course, the student should have been made aware of the summer program well in advance.</p>
<p>Kelsmom,</p>
<p>they were aware of the program in advanced. The strings were attached to admission. The extra program was free, but required. No scholarship money were offered.</p>
<p>I looked into the program out of curiosity at the UofWI (I am not a minority) and I think it is a great program, regardless of student’s stats (or URM status). It is not only a summer program, throughout the entire school year it provides mentor-ships and special opportunities every student can benefit from. However, it is inconvenient to those students who have to work during summer to make money to pay for college.</p>
<p>For that kind of program, it should either be stipulated as a condition of admission, or as an invitation - and if it’s an invitation, students who are invited should be able to decline without recourse.</p>
<p>If they did in fact have similar stats to others who were not required to attend, then they have a legitimate concern. If they didn’t and it was a stipulation of admission, then they had the opportunity to attend elsewhere.</p>
<p>Yes, the programs that I am aware of are for “some” URM students who normally would not have been accepted to that competitive campus. Instead, they are given an extra chance. I am not making any judgement calls, but the goal is to make up for a poor high school environment for students with high potential. </p>
<p>Many competitive colleges have learned that it does not serve a student well to admit a student who will have difficulty keeping up with the coursework. These summer programs are intended to even the playing field for them.</p>
<p>In many cases for a public university, if the student cannot attend the summer program, they have the choice of starting at a branch campus, where the admissions are typically less competitive.</p>
<p>Momzie is correct. I lot of families in the $100K range have moms who worked in the home when the kids were very young and only recently went back to work for wages. Many parents have been paying down their own loans long after their own kids were born. Even upper-middle income parents have to make choices, such as funding retirement accounts; sports, dance, music for their kids; some pay for private schools, etc. At the end of each month, you may have enough to put some into the college fund, but it won’t add up to $200K for each child.</p>
<p>I lot of families in the $100K range have moms who worked in the home when the kids were very young and only recently went back to work for wages. </p>
<hr>
<p>This is our situation. To be honest, it is a pretty good situation to be in … my “new” earnings went toward school. Our lifestyle was not improved when I returned to work, but we were able to pay for the kids to go to college. Many on CC would be upset if they were in this situation, complaining that they have to pay anything (or more than they want to pay, at the very least) … but we viewed it as a blessing to be able to take care of our kids’ college costs. That said, I still wish we had saved more over the years. I was lucky to have found a job (I returned to work in 2008, as the bottom dropped out of the economy), and D was lucky to attend a private school that paid the difference between our giant EFC and the even-larger COA. S is at a state school, and it costs less than our EFC. The best thing to do is save, save, save … save early, save often.</p>
<p>I was chatting with my son last night on one of my sisters that is sending one of her kids to college here. I think that college is about $40K. She’s also supporting another kid (lives near a school and goes part time and she’s funding his apartment (shared) and school costs (though I think that the college credit covers all costs). We figured that they are making about $180K/year in SF and paying about $40K/year for Federal and State taxes. They had help from her husband’s parents on their home and I’d guess that it’s paid off now. They typically drive old cars. If you figure about $60K for their living costs, that still leaves enough to pay full private costs which is probably about what they are paying for their two kids right now.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that does not tell the whole story. My wife has gone back to work as a financial consultant working part time. She made approximately $30,000 last year. In California (where we live), when you add federal, State, self-employment tax and everything else under the sun (except sales tax on purchased goods), we pay between 50 and 52 cents on the dollar in taxes for every dollar she makes. The financial aid packages we’ve seen are expecting a family contribution in the $35,000 range. If my wife quit working, our family contribution would go down about $9,000. Put another way, between college costs and taxes, we’re netting about $6,000 per year. While the $500 per month is nice, it’s not clear that the additional driving, clothes and other costs associated with her working don’t cost more. There is something seriously wrong with a system where someone who wants to work and pay their own way may be better off quiting work.</p>
<p>As an aside, we thought that we’d mitigate some of this with scholarships. As you probably know, however, that only reduces the $2,000 or so that they want our son to contribute. The next $20,000 goes to the University. Anything above that goes to the parents.</p>
<p>What’s particularly annoying (and that’s saying something because a lot of this is annoying) is that these school have the guts to advertise that they are “full need” and that the students graduate with little or no debt. They conveniently leave out the carnage of the family left in the institution’s wake.</p>
<p>A lot of guys joined the military for college money and found themselves walking night patrols in Fallujah. So there are risks. One benefit, however, is that after serving on active duty in the military, a student is considered independent and Mom and Dad’s hefty salaries are not counted in determining eligibility for financial aid. Marriage has the same benefit. So encourage your kid to marry the high school honey instead, divorce is still marginally less risky that an actual war zone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While those serving in the Army and the Marines in the Iraq combat area faced increased risk of death, those serving in the Navy and Air Force actually had lower death rates than overall US men age 20-34.</p>
<p><a href=“http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=psc_working_papers[/url]”>http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=psc_working_papers</a> (see tables 1 and 2)</p>
<p>Of course, military service is not for everyone. Obviously, entering military service involves the political risk of a war occurring during one’s service.</p>
<p>Not every job in the Army is combat arms, there are plenty of support positions that rarely leave the confines of a heavily guarded FOB. A 36B aka a Finance clerk or someone in the 35 series (Intel) is unlikely to ever go out on patrol with the Infantry or any units that actively support them like logistics who are the ones tasked with delivering supplies to the line units.</p>
<p>But yes, military life is not for everyone no matter the branch. You will at times <em>hate</em> life while you’re in, but still yet…I miss the structure and camaraderie despite the occasional BS. Made quite a few lifelong friends in the Army and I basically a free ride through college.</p>
<p>I’ll second the GI Bill. Granted I joined the Marines as a Grunt for the opposite reason (I actually wanted to deploy), it’s working out for me now. The GI Bill isn’t taxable income, so I come out on top with regards to financial aid. </p>
<p>When I was over there, most in non-combat related jobs sat around in a FOB all day and ate well. Some even found time to take online classes, etc. I’ll add that if you want to go to school while you’re in, stay away from the infantry.</p>
<p>In Vietnam, the smart guys all joined the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army. The Navy never had to draft anyone. However, during the Iraq War, there was a shortage of Army and Marines personnel, and a number of Navy and Air Force personnel were assigned ground missions inside Iraq. Because there was not a traditional front line, many non-combat service-persons died, including because of IEDs along roads. </p>
<p>I hope our service-persons are never put in that type of situation again. I simply wanted to point out that there are potential hazards with any position, even sitting at a desk at the Pentagon, during a terrorist attack. </p>
<p>(During Vietnam, I did hear about a guy who thought he was smart to join the Coast Guard. What he didn’t realize was the Coast Guard was assigned to operate some of the river gunboats that saw some of the worst action. Meanwhile, the National Guard was never sent to Vietnam. It was a good hiding place for the people with connections.)</p>