<p>There are many colleges. Of the top 100 or 200 schools (top LACs and top universities combined), only a relatively small proportion do only need based aid. Yes, they do tend to be the very top (10%) or so schools but the other schools on those lists do not provide a mediocre education. My son attended a LAC that was rigorous and then a state school that also was mostly rigorous. The main difference in educational quality seemed to be in the lowest level classes- 100 level. Because of the differences in transferring, he did end up with a geography class which was less rigorous than the high school class I had taught him years previously. But all his upper level classes required reading, studying, writing papers, etc. and I know you couldn’t pass with slacking since he proved it (fell back into depression and stopped attending and writing). But I would have no hesitation recommending that state school and I know that they are having some very unique programs that are so good that although we are moving, I am now considering the school for my youngest. </p>
<pre><code> IN terms of Vandy’s suggestion of saving 10K per year, not all of us have steady high incomes. Some of us had highly progressive income scales. Even when my oldest was ) years old and second one was 5, we were still stationed in an area where our income was in the bottom 40% percentile of incomes. No 20K savings there. The EFC also doesn’t account for how much you saved and spent on previous children. It may appear that you weren’t saving but paying out for years before can easily decimate your savings. I also would think that many people lost large amounts of savings in the 2007 time period and although the stock market has risen, it hasn’t taken care of the losses.
</code></pre>
<p>Finally, not everyone with a relatively high income is wealthy. Wealth is a measure of assets. Our current income is around 150K. When we move, it will drop. But in neither case will we own a home, have large amounts of savings, or any other large amounts of assets.</p>
<p>On the trend topic about where kids are choosing to go…DD’s university (top-10 public research university) sent something out a few weeks ago that said that in 1995, 10 percent of its student body had graduated in the top 10 percent of their student bodies. Today, 50 percent of the student body meets the top ten percent of their high school classes criteria. That is quite a change.</p>
<p>I think that the trend for living large is decreasing in many areas of American life. And IMO that is a good thing.</p>
<p>“Finally, not everyone with a relatively high income is wealthy. Wealth is a measure of assets. Our current income is around 150K”</p>
<p>-Agree again. “$150k + no debt at all” is not wealthy. We do not call ourselves wealthy, we are barely in a middle by all accounts, I do not care about statistics, I go with how I feel about it. We have not bought ourselves a brand new car ever (the newest had 2,000 miles), I never buy clothes at regular price and we go out very few times/year (well, I do not like to go out), we live in a house that is under $200k. I do not call us wealthy, no way. I know people of comparable and much higher ($250K) income and they live about the same life style or even lower than we do. At least we go on nice and fansy vacation every year. I believe that people in a range of $400 + can afford paying those huge elite UG tuitions. Below that, it is going to be debt. On top of that we have only one dependent. How about families with several kids (in close age). I do not know how they deal with college tuition at ANY UG, besides having kids on Merit scholarships.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that HYPSM could easily fill their classes with students/families willing to pay $100k with zero aid. But the farther one goes down the food chain…</p>
<p>So now we are setting class distinctions by “feelings.”
I’m willing to wager that when it works in your favor, you’re willing to listen to the facts.</p>
<p>Whatever, pugmadkate, every family decides what they want to pay for college and go from there, favor or not. Some are OK with paying the max, some are OK with paying the min, it is really each family’s decision, up the food chain, down the food chain… yes it strictly depends on how they FEEL, not any other facts or statistics.
Do not forget, we are still paying taxes that are NOT based on our feelings but based on how much gov. wants from us. This is strictly facts, feelings have nothing to do with it, as much as we want praise or disagree with this fact, it is irrelevant. There are very many things that we do based on feelings and there are many others that we do based on facts.</p>
<p>WOW. This resentment toward the successful is overwhelming. Don’t even act like you are trying to be fair. You are completely twisting MiamiDAP’s words and being completely unnecessarily bitter! The fact is MANY $150k families are FAR from comfortably affording a $50k/year education! My definition for “wealthy” would exclude such families.</p>
<p>I do not cry, I do not compalin. All I said that we choose not to pay UG tuition and we do not consider ourselves wealthy along with many others with equal or higher income. I also never said that paying or not paying taxes is our choice along with choosing jobs, there are no choice of jobs, at least where we are living. We lucky to work and be thankful for that every single day. Yes, we also choose to work vs. not working. </p>
<p>It is up to a family to choose paying or not fo UG college. We did not see any reasons to pay for UG, while others might decide completely opposite. So, I am in complete agreement with the article.</p>
<p>Resentment? No, it’s facts. 95 percent of Americans never even think about attending a college that costs $50,000 per year. It’s not even remotely an option.</p>
<p>My family’s household income is around $90,000 and that puts us well inside the top 20 percent of earners. Spending $50k per year on a private college wasn’t even in the conversation. Somehow, we manage to pay the extra taxes we didn’t pay when our income was more like $50,000 ten years ago. Funny how that works, isn’t it.</p>
<p>If one makes $150,000 or more per year, one is wealthy by any objective definition of the word.</p>
<p>Agree. However one feels about the wealthy, they generally do recognize good investment value. I don’t see how the lower-tier privates will survive charging $55K+, unless they can market themselves to the wealthy as offering something much more valuable than the state schools.</p>
<p>First, define “successful”, because income is only one part of how I define that. Second, you have no idea what my household income is but I will share that we qualified for absolutely no need-based aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would I care what your definition is or why would you care what mine is? That’s why there are these pesky little things called “facts.” When you are in the top 10% of your country’s income brackets, you are not middle class. Do I need to define what “middle” means? </p>
<p>I get tired, oh so very tired, of listening to friends and families complain about their economic plight (which is exactly what a top ten percent earner is doing if they are insisting they are middle class.) We also cannot afford 50K a year; doesn’t change the facts of our economic situation as compared to the rest of the households in my country. When your family is in the top 10% of earners, you’re not middle class.</p>
<p>And all this b.s. about being middle class when we are not only serves to silence and make invisible the real middle class and the poor.</p>
<p>polarscribe, I tell people the same thing when they complain about property taxes. Just move to a less expensive house and problem solved!</p>
<p>I like paying our property taxes. It reminds me of how lucky we are to live in this lovely home, to have public schools, roads, a fire department and so on. My family’s story could only have happened in America, I will happily pay taxes to the county and country for both services and opportunities until the day I die. </p>
<p>I cannot handle the whining of the “haves.” Give it away! Problem solved!</p>
<p>Not to take this thread in a different direction,or disagree that 150k is indeed in the top 10 percent of wage earners,BUT,lol…</p>
<p>150k in the NYC area is a WHOLE lot different then 150k in Iowa…in NYC area with that income ,you are eating tube steaks,and living in a modest home,driving a nice car,but likely not brand new…That would qualify as middle class. ;)</p>
<p>^Agree again! 150K in NYC is actually barely making it! I know it very well (not living in NYC myself. Actually living in one of the cheapest reqions, mostly because of absolute absence of jobs. People have left and continue leaving, finding jobs everywhere else, including CA as bad as they complain over there, still much better than in our city.)</p>
so let me get this straight … Bill Gates’ kid could go to HYP at a lower cost than currently while the brillant kid from Roxbury (poor section of Boston) can no longer attend HYP … the day one of my schools uses this strategy is the day I stop make donations (which are designated for financial aid)</p>
<p>It would be interesting to know what the income distribution of students at the expensive private schools is. </p>
<p>There’s a lot of speculation going on here with few facts. Are wealthy and poor students overrepresented, i. e. a higher percentage attending than the distribution in the population or in admissions or in applications sent in.</p>
<p>In other words are the middle class kids ($60,000 to $100,000, approx.) being priced out of what is available to the poor and the wealthy?</p>
<p>The wealthy are incredibly overrepresented…</p>
<p>You can check out the schools and look at the percentage of students that are full payers.</p>
<p>And some posters know this…</p>
<p>The poor are underrepresented…</p>
<p>You can look at students on Pell Grants…</p>
<p>The average income for a student’s family was over 100,000 a year at Michigan…7 years ago…</p>
<p>The median income for student’s at schools like Harvard is probably over 200,000… (I admit I haven’t looked at the numbers since Harvard tried to bring more kids into the school from the middle and lower classes).</p>