Yes! Yes! Yes! Everything you are saying is so right!
My DS first choice school is a great fit for him. Everything - academics, class size, location, just enough prestige, etc. Yes, he is applying and I’m pretty certain he will get in. I also believe he will get merit aid. But will it be enough? I’m sure it won’t be. We have decided we at not going into debt or reaching into retirement savings to fund it. So, most likely he will not be attending. We are the group who will not qualify for financial aid but certainly can not afford out of state or private, expensive colleges with ease.
I have said out loud many times, maybe we should take 250K and set him up in business or be mortgage/rent free! In fact, I know one family doing just that! I truly think these things are changing. People just aren’t willing to pay the cost any longer.
It seems it’s this group in the middle who are getting kicked in the teeth. Qualify for financial aid and you’re all set, wealthy, all set, super high stats all set. The smart kid who has done all the right things but whose parents are successful (but not super successful), isn’t an URM, or fall into some other “group” has less options when trying to stay out of debt.
^ But not a financial fit.
“I’m sure it won’t be. We have decided we at not going into debt…”
But he’s applying. I know it’s a tough decision. Maybe it’s a case where merit is competitive and just maybe he gets a nice package. But a lot of families apply to these expensive schools when they know there’s doubt. They aren’t voting with their feet.
Worse, when many couldn’t ever afford some schools and do come back on CC asking about huge loans.
Too much debt is a bad thing- no argument from me. But a lot of families fetishize “no debt” to an astonishing degree. People who took out mortgages to buy a house, people who use a line of credit to finance their business expansion, people who lease cars (yes, that’s a form of debt).
Figure out how to use debt wisely for your kid’s education. If you can swing it- and it opens up many more possibilities, some of which are a better use of four years than the no-debt options- then keep it on the table. If not- then go back to the no-debt options. But forcing your kid to commute to your (formerly known as) Teacher’s college to major in early childhood education since that’s the only affordable option with no loans, vs. a slightly more expensive campus which has a major which your kid is actually interested in and shows some talent- to me, that’s a discussion worth having before taking the “modest debt” U off the list.
It seems “not dipping into retirement savings” comes up on CC a lot. The people I know who had real trouble paying for college, are now in subsidized low income senior housing and reasonably happy. They didn’t have retirement savings and pay 30% of their income (entirely a lowish social security check) for rent. Just saying, keeping retirement savings intact is an upper middle class goal.
^^Let’s please not let this thread go the “minorities go to college for free” route. Not sure that’s what you are saying, but since it’s become clear that a sizeable section of the country thinks this, I hate to see it even hinted.
The $65,000 schools are not loved by all. Our local business journal ranks the local $14,000/year public school over the local $65,000 LAC. There are many options for the middle class. I collected fourteen W-2s before I got myself through. Loans were paid off when I turned 33. We visited NYU but I said no to my son because I struggled to find $2 beer.
@roethlisburger --I haven’t read it in a while, but I am almost certain that the Krueger study asserted that a student who was ACCEPTED by an “elite” but didn’t go to it did just as well as a student who did go to it. Applying and being rejected would not automatically make that happen (though of course many very qualified students who are rejected will follow that pattern, also.)
The op clearly is a newbie. All these schools do not charge the same high price. Because the sticker price is only loosely related to the actual net price your kid pays.
The price varies greatly depending on your income and your kid’s stats. The average price for lmu is nowhere near its $65k sticker. It may or may not be a pricey school for you.
“Elite” to us means schools “ranked” around 100-150 (Toyotas.) I’m very sure that my S18 will be able to go to a school that will neither break our bank nor provide a sub-standard education (We’ll get the Deluxe Toyota regardless.) However, I’m hating being in a position where the price isn’t necessarily reflective of their (perceived) value. I go through exactly this obsessive process for every vacation, major purchase, etc., btw. 8-}
In the end, I totally get that this is a good problem to have since it means we’re now in a position I couldn’t dream of when I was a kid. We’re not ruling out State Schools or CC’s, they just aren’t a fit for this particular kid for reasons posted elsewhere. Thanks, all, for the continued input!
Compmom…“keeping retirement savings intact is an upper middle class goal”. Um.,.no…its called personal responsibility. It isn’t anyone’s responsibility to pay for retirement but us! Just as I don’t expect the public to fund my children’s college! Right…keep spending other people’s hard earned money. Some seem to forget that every dollar given to them is a dollar somebody else worked hard for. Believe it or not, we aren’t a socialist country.
OP- As you stay on CC longer you will learn about options that can make the price tag lower. For example at Florida State University, if you do your first year abroad, the following years are at in state prices. For an adventurous kid that is quite the deal. https://international.fsu.edu/FYA.aspx
Price IS indicative of perceived value- at least to somebody.
To me the idea of paying full price for Quinnipiac or Hofstra or Pace is lunacy. (I live in the region, and I hire people for a living). But kids come from Texas or California or Florida-- having chosen these private colleges over less expensive options in their own states) and it must be for something “of value”. I have neighbors who have sent their kids to college thousands of miles away to schools which have less academic rigor and worse reputations for academics and intellectual engagement (and fewer resources) than public options close buy. Why? It’s more “valuable” for them.
I don’t tell other people how to spend their money. To me- paying more for less academic rigor makes no sense (which is what we told our kids-- full price for a college with a strong intellectual environment, tough standards, and terrific resources/faculty/student engagement? Yes. Full price for a glorified country club with nice athletic facilities? Nope, not happening).
But this is a decision that every family needs to make.
That’s great. But also note that this is your personal decision. Paying for college out of current income is darn near impossible for “group in the middle.” Even our state Unis are ~$35k/yr.
It also makes it hard when your in-state options are not as good. CA residents have great options but not so for many others. When we looked at OOS cost of attendance we were kind of shocked. For instance OOS at the University of Texas at Austin is ~$52.5k - that is approaching the cost of many private schools.
@rwmannesq I completely wholeheartedly agree with you. There is no way my husband and I would pull from our retirement and/or go into debt to pay for our children’s educations. We have 6 degrees between the two of us, and none required our parents to fund. We did not graduate from expensive schools but somehow we both work at jobs we love and we live comfortably.
Garland and others, no I wasn’t hinting at minorities on financial aid. Where did that come from? I am talking about senior citizens whose kids mainly went to state colleges, and grew up in a pretty much all white working class but lovely seaside town. I am just saying that the view of what retirement means varies for people. I am living in a small studio that I pay for myself. The friends in subsidized housing worked hard their entire lives and and are frugal people who have had hardships.
The key word in that is “subsidized”…you are suggesting that not saving enough for retirement and then living off of other people’s money is a good thing. That only works as long as there are others out there who are both saving for their own retirement and earning enough to pay for yours. Once everyone decides to live in subsidized housing for retirement, the subsidies run out. Keeping retirement savings intact should be primarily a responsible person’s goal, regardless of economic class.
I am not suggesting it is a good thing. I am saying that my friends, through no fault of their own, have meager savings. They worked jobs that did not pay a lot, or have disabilities or whatever. They are very responsible people. If you need money for health care or food, you do end up touching savings, sorry.
I personally am not subsidized and don’t plan to be.
I just wonder what “retirement savings” means for people since so many posters bring them up in the context of not wanting to pay for college. In fact, if their kids assume debt with interest I wonder if it is economically smarter to dip into those savings and versus losing all that interest on debt.
In the spirit of “ranting” the most troubling aspect to me is that private colleges are acting like taxman here—taking away $200k from middle class to give it to what they believe is more just social cause— helping the poorer families who make even less. Here is a typical scenario: a family in Ca making $225k, who is almost working poor because like a third of Americans they can’t afford a house and would be perpetual renters, and whose savings would be only enough for their kids college and retirements. Since money is fungible the $200k after tax money they have to pay out of pocket would essentially be given to a family making $100k in Tx who would probably have better financial situation than the other families anyway. The bottom line is that most middle income families ($100K-$250K) make that extra income over poverty by working hard and valuing more education. It is ironic that private colleges so fixated on their social mission of economic justice would not hesitate to punish even moderate success in upward mobility.
College affordability is relative. In Europe, college costs are minimal since tuition is essentially subsidized to zero and many countries offer stipends to college students to cover living expenses. But, in India, tuition and fees to the IITs are greater than the average household income. In China, it is more affordable but still about one-third of the average household income - about the same percentage as public colleges in the U.S. Median income Americans headed to the elite private colleges (Ivies) are likely to get financial aid close to the entire cost (tuition, room, and board).
When people complain about affordability, are they saying that average Americans ($60-80k w/o a college degree) should pay more taxes to so those who earn 2-3x the average American ($120-240k) get more financial aid to send their children to elite institutions? Or are they complaining about for profit colleges scamming students with worthless degrees and government guaranteed loans? Or is it a problem of average income households with children at public colleges? These aren’t the same problems to solve.