<p>We have already been priced out. S is our oldest, he is a freshman. We have two more down the road we have to plan for. If S were an only child, maybe we could have done it.</p>
<p>But we were not at this income level all along, and have had financial setbacks along the way. We live in a high cost of living area, which the FAFSA does not account for. Our jobs are not secure, so it would be too risky to take on large loans. And we refuse to let S take on a mortgage sized student loan payment when he graduates.</p>
<p>We have not lived extravagantly and drive old cars. One concession is that 2 younger D’s attend Catholic school. Still a fraction of what some private schools cost.</p>
<p>S was not Ivy material, and the only schools that offered him decent merit had mediocre programs in his major. So S is attending the state flagship, which overall is ok, but does have one of the top programs in his major. He is very happy there and is doing well in his studies.</p>
<p>“Where did you get that statistic? It certainly isn’t true for us (renters) nor for many who bought homes in maybe the 2000-2006 time frame and are now upside down on their homes and may very well have negative assets.”</p>
<p>Inside Higher Education</p>
<p>And, yes, if you overpaid for your house during the bubble things are really difficult. We bought our house in 1992 for $81.5k, and during my older one’s college years, our income never went above $67k (which made us firmly upper middle class), and, with savings, generous financial aid, and small, manageable student loans, things turned out great. However, a lot of my middle-income neighbors ($50k) have difficulty with state u. costs, and those with incomes a little lower are now struggling to afford the community college.</p>
<p>If they will be full pay? They need to save $44,500 per year in order to amass their college fund. </p>
<p>Some day, there will be those on CC blithely asserting that somebody could have easily saved 46,000 per year and STILL saved for retirement, if only they’d really planned ahead.</p>
<p>Out of curiousity, did any of you ever invest in any of those college saving plans that were supposed to cover the full price of college tuition for your kids? Do they cover the full cost?</p>
<p>"
The difference:
1986 any NE private = $14K and most could get hired making $20K (42% increase)
2011 any NE private = $50K and I don’t think kids are getting hired $71K (tuition + 42%)</p>
<p>Well I remember reading a study about the correlations or lack of them with income and wealth accumulation. There were tremendous differences between assets of a typical white family and a typical black family. The white family typically had a lot of assets while the black family had much, much less. The discussion was why that was so. It turned out that the black families started out in a worse position- they had student loans, they had no inheritance, they had no help in buying a first house, etc, etc. I realized that although we are not black, we had the same experience with very limited to no help from our parents, no inheritance, no help for getting a car or a house, nothing. I daresay that there are many of us with the same experiences. Paying student loans until we were one year from sending our first to college, moving frequently, etc, etc, did not lend itself to building up a large amount of assets. </p>
<pre><code>Now what does lack of assets mean? It should mean that the parents strongly urge the child to go to a school that provides good aid or has a low enough price. Hopefully parents are realistic with their kids about finances. But about the colleges continuing to raise prices-- I really think that is only possible because they are discounting so many kids tuition that really not very many are paying the sticker price at many of these schools. How much of a discount you get can be based on many things but some type of discounts are available to most. Otherwise, a school I was looking at could not say that 47.1% of the kids coming from 80K and up families receive assistance worth an average of 23K. Now granted that the 23K may include loans but it also includes institutional aid (otherwise known as a discount) which that same school claims is an average of 15K for all groups. This was also at a school that already costs quite a bit less than 55K. I think many, many are doing this. Raising prices for all, discounting them again for many.
</code></pre>
<p>There is a huge difference between your sons’ Ivy and a non-flagship State U. There are a lot of schools in between, both public and private, that are selective, attract very good students, and where one receives a fine education. </p>
<p>Just among publics…there is a big difference between the state flaghship and other state schools. Take my state…Vermont. University of Vermont is well regarded and in fact, attracts top students from our high school. It also attracts out of state students. It is really no comparison to Lyndon State, Castleton State, or Johnson State, other state universities here in Vermont that take almost anyone. If your D attends a less selective state school, you can’t compare it to all publics such as your state flagship school. The criteria to be admitted alone is considerably different. </p>
<p>Anyway, there are also well regarded privates that may not have national name recognition. I hardly see these as a waste of money. </p>
<p>I feel you are comparing your D’s education at what may be a state school that is not a flagship that almost anyone can be admitted to and the education your sons have received at an Ivy. There is such a wide chasm between those two extremes and I believe a really good education and strong students abound at schools in the middle of the two extremes you have in your family.</p>
<p>For example, on the one hand you say it is not worth the money for a private school that is not well known and a kid may as well go to a public school (nothing wrong with publics of course) but on the other hand, you poo poo the education your D is receiving at what may be a state school that is not selective and not the flagship school. In my view, as an example, a great education could be had in between…say Muhlenberg, Ithaca, American, Clark, St. Lawrence, Goucher, University of Scranton, etc. The kinds of students such schools attract, and the kind of education is not going to be like non-flagship state schools.</p>
<p>Back to the OP & what has been re-hashed; My parents did not have any savings for their 6 kids to go to college. Total income $30K (and they sent us to parochial schools).</p>
<p>Yet we were all expected to get a college degree. Some rec’d full academic scholarship (at a tiny, unknown college), some CC and state schools. Most of us got to live away for at least 2 years. We paid our own way 100% and very few loans (too scary to borrow). Now everyone living comfortably and more. </p>
<p>At that time, 1975-1986 it could be done. I don’t think it can be now, unless it’s 2 years at CC then state school. There are great lessons in being frugal. That being said, I’d love my kids to have a 4 yr beautiful college campus expereince… I guess that’s the Superior Chinese Mother’s point-- we’re too soft & indulgent with our kids.</p>
<p>I’d also add that there are very selective flagship schools that are even reasonably priced for out-of-staters. Three I can think of off the top of my head are UNC-Chapel Hill, SUNY-Geneseo (I guess NY doesn’t really have a flagship school) and UT-Austin. I believe in the two admission cycles my girls went through, we found that UNC and SUNY-Geneseo actually would have cost less than our in-state flagship. And they both have much higher reputations than our flagship, which is by no means a shoddy spot.</p>
<p>Wow, things get heated. Just to weigh in on three things:</p>
<ol>
<li>There’s a lot of argument about what is “wealthy” and what isn’t, and who should be able to save on what amount of income. One family talked about how their income of $100K after tax was enough to allow for saving for college and retirement. Well of course, that’s after tax. Other posters were talking about pre-tax income. There’s a huge difference there, and much of the conflicts in this thread are because of not making that huge distinction. $100K AFTER tax is not remotely the same thing as $100K before tax.</li>
<li>“Wealthy” is not the same as “high-income.” Wealthy people have assets: investment property, large retirement accounts, art, extra homes, investment income, etc. High-income people (say, above $100K a year pre-tax) are in the fortunate minority in this country, but many are just getting by on that and don’t have a lot of assets. I’m not saying we should feel sorry for them, but that is not wealth, that is just good, high-paying jobs.</li>
<li>Someone earlier was very touchy about the cost of housing and said it was a choice to live in a $500,000 house. Well, yes, to a degree, people choose to live in certain regions. I choose to live in Southern California, because I was raised here, and all my family is here, and my husband and my careers are here, etc. etc. You cannot buy a house in even a lower-middle-class neighborhood anywhere in the greater LA area for $200K. I don’t think you can even buy a studio condo for that. A very modest house in a neighborhood that has gang issues and horrible schools is $500K. That’s just the way it is here. Yes, we could “choose” to move to the rural midwest, but we’d have no way to make a living, and we don’t want to give up our lives.</li>
</ol>
<p>There is nobody who is “just getting by” on an income of $100,000+ unless they’re supporting ten kids or something. Anyone making that much has plenty of choices if they need to reduce spending - cut off the smartphones, dump the 1000-channel DirecTV service, sell the third car, cancel the trip to Hawaii.</p>
<p>Single mothers supporting their family on $30,000, now they’re “just getting by.”</p>
<p>The median home sale price in Los Angeles County in November was $330,000, meaning half of all homes sold for less. So apparently there are plenty of places for way, way less than $500k.</p>
<p>Polarscribe wrote: Single mothers supporting their family on $30,000, now they’re "just getting by.</p>
<p>Actually most of the very low income people have incomes like 30K but then receive assistance of various kinds that is worth a lot of money. If that 30K is earned, they get an earned income credit, they may well be on food stamps, free or reduced lunch program, section 8 housing if they live in an expensive area and medicaid for at least the kids.</p>
<p>BUt no one here is arguing that Pell Grants or something like that should be given to 100k plus families. What we are talking about is are colleges pricing themselves out? </p>
<p>By the way, higher application rates have two main causes- one, the ease of Common Application and some of the other online applications and two, the great uncertainty with both acceptances and even more importantly in many cases, final cost. Many families I know apply to a number of colleges to see which place ends up costing the least. There is so little correlation between the listed price and what you end up paying that unless it is a school the parents have already decided they can pay full price, final price can range from full price to full ride and almost always is somewhere in between.</p>
<p>As has been reported, in the last year or two it has become brutally hard to be admitted to OOS flagships State U.'s with reasonable costs. In round figures, let’s call $35K out the door max as the figure for ‘reasonable’. I believe the aforementioned SUNY-Geneseo, UNC, UT-Austin fall in that category, and I’d throw UW-Madison in there too. A prospective at any of these institutions will have to have super-high GPA, ACT/SAT, and also frankly be the right sex, geographic location & ethnic makeup that fills in that year’s incoming class quota. You’ll never find that written down, but I’ve observed too many squirrelly things with admissions lately.</p>
<p>And teriwtt…did I read right when you said that UNC & SUNY-Geneseo have a ‘much higher reputation’ than IL’s flagship, UIUC?! I’m no fan of Champaign, but IMO UNC is barely an equal & Geneseo ain’t even in the team picture. However, I will say that both are good schools & great values IF you can get admitted!</p>
<p>It really irks me when people make inflammatory statements about what is getting by and what is not.</p>
<p>We do not live in an upscale community, only mediocre public schools, yet the median house price is $300K.</p>
<p>In order to afford the cost of living in our area, both of us work. Full time preschool care ran $13K a year. We have to pay for after school care and summer day camps. None of this is subsidized like it would be for a low income family.</p>
<p>We drive 9 and 14 year old cars.</p>
<p>We may make over 100K, but we have debts accrued from previous financial setbacks when we were earning less. And we can’t take out huge loans, since there is a very good chance one or both of us could lose our jobs, and that income would be gone.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks there is an advantage to being low income, or that low income people reside on the other side of some “donut hole” in a place where college costs are actually easier to pay than for people with 100K-plus incomes, should try it out some time and see if that is in fact the case.</p>
<p>^Several siblings and cousins in my family live outside of the “donut hole” for various reasons. Many nephews from these low-income families have gotten full rides from state flagships. The other family kids whose folks are making 50-75K are going to community colleges or taking out huge loans for said state flagships. Although I wouldn’t want to live my siblings’ lifestyles, their children have always been well taken care of and they are now going to college for free. I don’t know whether or not it’s “fair” but these kids outside of the “donut hole” seem pretty happy with their financial situations now.</p>
<p>This answers my question. Presumably, the community college kids’ families could pay for higher priced schools, if they were willing to lower their lifestyles to that of the low income families, but, understandably, they are not.</p>