That’s exactly what’s happening. This doesnt even apply to our family since we are fortunate to pay all costs, undergraduate, post graduate etc.
However, at our HS, there are several (many South Asian) families who immigrated to this country within the last 10 years and didnt start a 529 plan early enough (or were even aware of them until it was too late to have any real compounding effect).
They fall right into the donut hole family. Im not an expert on the NPC (never filled one out) or even sure what typical assets are. However, they have told me that despite their kids coming into a school system with language barriers, they worked their butt off but they cant afford to pay because they recently started making money and they have 2-3 kids.
So yes, their kids are amazing and can go anywhere, and they can afford to pay, just not $100k per year. Yes, you got into Harvard but look for other options instead.
Sure, that’s life but they seem to be singled out in this process.
I guess I just don’t see them as singled out. They are constrained in college choice, but they are not the only ones. Lower incomes than them are also constrained, just in different ways and at different schools. If one looks at college as the sole or most worthy “prize” are the prestige schools, then sure, one could see it as you do. But that is such a small sliver of schools and students that the vast majority of even very good students could never go to those. There are not enough slots. If one widens the lens to other quality privates and quality state schools, it is lower incomes folks than them who often struggle to be able to attend due to lack of affordability or because the schools are need aware and turn them away. If what you mean is that group is singled out by Stanford, Harvard and their peers as not getting the aid they need. Fine. But, I can’t co-sign on the notion that college admissions, even good college admissions and affordability, singled out families who are too wealthy for aid at the most expensive schools, but not so wealthy as to be able to shell out $100k per year.
Within the context of this particular thread and T20 schools, who else does it affect?
Yes, they could go to other schools but other schools really aren’t $100k so it’s really about a handful of schools and only this specific demographic.
Agreed; I see nothing here that rises to the level of professional journalism. A kid writing for their high school paper could just as easily look up the sticker prices of California colleges and write a golly-gee-whiz-that’s-expensive article about it. A bit of nuance about financial aid should be the bare minimum to make the article worth writing at all.
So who is worse off- the kids you are describing who can’t afford Harvard but who can afford their own state flagship (and are strong enough students to get into those schools- or comparable “merit award” private colleges) or the low income kid who isn’t Harvard/Stanford smart but is absolutely four year college material, who ends up getting an AA for Pharm Tech from their close by Community College instead of a BS in chemistry, because the public U’s close enough to commute to are unaffordable?
I’m sensing folks on this thread believe that low income kids have it so easy because a small number of them will get accepted to one of the mega generous schools. What about the B plus students who aren’t fending off fly-in offers from Amherst and Princeton?
To me, watching the superstar kid from a “we don’t qualify for aid family” end up at U VA or U Michigan or UIUC because the family couldn’t afford the 100K school but COULD afford their flagship doesn’t feel tragic. Or even unfair.
Quick anecdote- a few years ago, our local transit company was on their periodical cost-cutting and one of the proposals was slashing the “night bus” which runs from the community college (which is not on a commuter train line) and goes to the commuter station and makes a few other stops in heavily populated neighborhoods. I know people who were shocked at the public hearing when CC students (and staff!) got up to describe how they got home after their last class ended at 8 pm. The “night bus” (last one until morning) from the CC to the train station, then a half hour ride or so then a mile or two walk. Just made you appreciate how hard it is to be trying to get an education with so few options and so many logistical complications to deal with. I’m guessing the “We make too much money for aid” families could handle a shared Uber one night a week if the transit company cut the night service.
The topic of this thread is College price tag soars in California, this is not a “T20” thread, whatever that actually is. Berkeley, Davis, UC Merced, are all part of what this thread is about. None of those cost $100k per year for anybody. How unfair the T20 is to some families should be a different thread.
How is this relevant? This thread is about whether donut familes can afford elite schools not a discussion about whether low income kids are worse off.
You clearly want to steer this into a direction of income equality when Im discussing why schools cost $100k.
I agree with what you say in this post, but just want to point out that the low income kid may actually be Harvard/Stanford smart, but just not get picked. Lots of kids smart enough do not make the cut because of volume, packaging, a whole host of things. Not intending to nit pick, but rather further highlight how not envious the low income student position in this whole thing actually is.
OK- schools cost 100K because the last thirty years has been a veritable Arms Race of amenities, enhanced learning supports, investments in non-academic facilities and snack bars, significantly better food, fancier dorms, etc.
The schools that have kept a lid on expenses are regularly described as “dumpy”. We have parents who post on CC that they’ve come back from a college which doesn’t even have AC in the dorms! In Maine! Where the kid will be at college for 4-6 AC days per year– but the entire university needs to immediately upgrade!
Not every college costs 100K. You know that, right? City College of NY which educates 15,000 students per year costs aprox. 15K per year. Most students commute so the cost of room and board is mostly lunch on campus. The entire CUNY system has 26 colleges, about 240,000 students (almost a quarter of a million students).
So the focus on “why does every college cost 100K per year” seems to me to be perpetuating the equity/income issue you don’t want to focus on. There are lots and lots of students in the US who can’t afford 100K (whether they are upper income, middle income, or low income) and have found other ways to get an education.
Stanford and Princeton cost 100K per year. Their campuses are gorgeous and the amenities are incredible.
So what is your point? Why do a tiny number of colleges cost so much? Why does a Mercedes cost so much? Why do Louboutin high heels cost so much? Why does the Ritz Carlton cost more than a Homewood Suites?
I’m totally confused about the point you are trying to make here. Some “stuff” costs more than other stuff. And it would be great if everyone could afford all the stuff they want. But they can’t. Right?
The discussed colleges are non-profit organizations. They actually spend far more the tuition revenue because of their extraordinarily high endowments. The colleges that have the highest endowment per student tends to be the ones with highest sticker price and most generous financial aid for non-wealthy students.
This is not a coincidence. I believe the original start involves Congress pressuring super high endowment colleges to spend a larger portion of their endowment. Some started dramatically increasing both sticker price and financial aid. Students with low income paid nothing, students with middle income paid similar/less than publics, and students with very high income paid the inflated sticker price.
The average (after FA) tuition + room + board + … per student received by the college was the same, so financials worked. The colleges were spending a larger portion of endowment on the increased FA, so Congress reduced some pressure. Free for low income and no tuition for middle income had good optics and was popular with the public, so marketing was happy. The only negative was for the very high income families who pay sticker price that is increasing faster than inflation; and there has been no shortage of wealthy families who would gladly pay near $100k/year for Ivy+ type colleges. If anything popularity among wealthy families has increased more than among other groups as sticker price has increased, sort of like a Veblan good.
It’s interesting they treat the $400k/yr family the same as the $50 million family.
Wonder if they could create more income tiers like tax rates. If your family makes over $1 million, your cost is $150k. Probably get pushback from those making $1 million per year.
Just a general note- if anyone feels that a narrow slice of colleges dominates the discussion on CC, there’s an easy way to fix that. Participate in OTHER discussions on CC.
I love telling HS kids about U Maine or Missouri S&T or U Cincinnati (pioneered coops!). I get very happy when a parent PM’s me to say that their kid was gaga over Notre Dame, guidance counselor said “You won’t get in to Notre Dame” but because I put together a list of other colleges that the kid might love, the ND talk has dissipated. That’s nice to hear.
We all have the power to change the channel when appropriate. There are hidden gems all over the country. It’s easy to fall in love with the winning football team college– it’s harder to have to research Stonehill or Endicott or Clark. If 20 kids from your HS are applying to “famous U” and you aren’t getting in to “Famous U” , it takes a little legwork to check out Muhlenberg or Skidmore or Conn College or Beloit or Goucher or Union or Earlham or Tulsa. But plug in your stats and your financial information and maybe you’ve uncovered a gem. Or not- and then you need more information and more schools to research.
If we don’t like the direction here on CC we all have the power to change the channel.
At some colleges, even $400k/yr families can get significant FA. A quote from a post I wrote in another thread is below listing Princeton cost by income, assuming not unusually high savings. Princeton’s marketing claims that Princeton charges no cost tuition for typical families with $250k income – Affordable For All | Princeton University .
It’s not a coincidence that Princeton is also the highest endowment per student college in the United States. Princeton’s endowment is currently $38 billion. Over the past 20 years, Princeton has had an average historical return of ~10% on their endowment, which corresponds to $3.8 billion in investment gains per year. That’s an average of over $400k/year annual investment gains per student compared to average tuition revenue of ~$20k per undergraduate student.
Princeton Net Cost
$466k AGI – Net Price = 20% of AGI (sticker price of $92k/year)
$450k AGI – Net Price = 19% of AGI
$400k AGI – Net Price = 18% of AGI
$350k AGI – Net Price = 17% of AGI
$300k AGI – Net Price = 15% of AGI
$250k AGI – Net Price = 12% of AGI
$200k AGI – Net Price = 9% of AGI
$175k AGI – Net Price = 6% of AGI
$150k AGI – Net Price = 3% of AGI
$136k AGI – Net Price = 0% of AGI (no cost to parents)
I just ran $300k in income with $500k total in investments and savings for Brown.
NPC $93,086.
Assuming you have to pay $100k in Federal, State, FICA, and Net Investment Income Tax, that would leave you with $200k after tax take home pay.
If you have 2 kids, the total cost for Brown would be $186k. Set aide the “you dont have to go to Brown argument” which we already discussed is not the point of this thread.