<p>But, you forget what you first said to me:
</p>
<p>kentuckymom,</p>
<p>You are correct when you point out that I, and perhaps others, combined several posters into one and attributed the comments of others to you. I’m sorry to have been careless.</p>
<p>You are not correct, however, to assume that all of us are taking up a position determined by our financial positions. My family is on the wrong side of the need-based aid line. It made a difference for us when it came to my son’s college search and will be a big factor in my daughter’s next year (son based his search and his choice on merit awards). I agree with those who think the calculation is way too harsh for those of us who have had good incomes for a few years, but utterly no family or inherited wealth. I don’t agree with you, though, that the exact same price should be paid by all, including children of the poor. As I have said earlier on this thread, ‘elite’ college campuses and the country as a whole are better now than when the student body was economically homogeneous.</p>
<p>By the way, I am not “angry” with you for your posts here, or the many posts on the same subject on the Vanderbilt forum. I just think that for your own sake, not to mention your daughter’s, it is time to move on. Vanderbilt is a private university, they can put their student body together however they want to. The dual public/private system of higher education in the U.S. is a great thing, IMO. Those who don’t like the way the private schools are going about things can choose a different school, or take advantage of the tax-payer supported public schools. (The latter is almost surely what we will be doing with the next one.)</p>
<p>Kymom</p>
<p>And you construe that as what? I showed concern for you and you, an adult woman, lashed out at me in anger.</p>
<p>Your tone throughout your posts is excessively strident, IMO. I don’t think I’m the only one who noticed it. I just thought that you were a bit angry and might need to talk to someone.</p>
<p>^^I don’t feel that someone your age calling an “adult woman,” as you say, after posting the essay that I did, “an obviously very bitter person” was out of “concern”, but very disrespectful. I replied to you with what I felt was the tone with which you addressed me. We had a few subsequent posts back and forth, and I felt no “anger” in your responses or mine. I am surprised that you still feel this way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How often does this really happen? I’ve seen very few “full rides” for low EFC and I’m just wondering who these kids are because all of the schools I’ve looked at (probably hundreds) had a very low number listed for “full need met”, and that obviously includes those that had a low amount of need anyway. Is it only at the few very selective schools with large endowments and “no loan” pledges? I thought the income cutoffs for no/low loans actually did apply to the higher income levels as well, on a sliding scale.</p>
<p>I know of only one low EFC kid that got a full ride anywhere but at a CC this year and that was to an instate public school. It was based on a combination of merit, 0 EFC, heritage, and 1st gen status - a scholarship that would not apply to a majority of kids. He will graduate debt free but is working while he’s in school to help support his younger siblings anyway. His plan is to give them a “leg up” by paying part of their education costs later and will undoubtedly be supporting his mother later on. That kind of story is common among the low income kids, at least the ones I know/hear about. Their “free ride” is so often not free at all because they’ve had obligations for years! I do know of several who received full scholarships in the past but they could not attend as they had to work full-time to help support their families so part-time at a CC was the only option they could take.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that the FA system is fair, or even reasonable. I understand that college is becoming unaffordable, and that no one gave us a “heads up” that hard work won’t guarantee a full range of choices. But I get a strong feeling, from the recent threads on this board, that many middle income people have no true knowledge of what life is truly like for the working poor. Family incomes are often well below $40K and many have endured hardships beyond their control - disease, disability, war, discrimination, crime, and abandonment are what I have personally seen, and they are likely to have been seriously affected by more than one of these. They didn’t choose or plan to be poor and they’re not slackers since they often have more than one job if they are physically capable of working at all. There aren’t alot of choices, often none at all, but when the chance of a lifetime, like a scholarship, comes along it can change the future of an entire family and save us all many times the relatively small amount of aid that is given for college. For a very low income kid to meet the standards of Harvard, or even Vanderbilt, is a huge accomplishment since they have likely had to overcome great challenges presented by their living situation.</p>
<p>So, before you decide to envy and despise the poor for taking an opportunity, or an institution for offering it, perhaps you could take some time to get to know someone in that situation. It’s a gut-wrenching, but often rewarding, experience and you will not wish your children had the same opportunity when you see the “price”. I think a much more effective and reasonable strategy would be to address the problem of outdated FA models with your elected officials - fix the problem that is affecting YOU.</p>
<p>Just my .02!</p>
<p>I didn’t realize that Bill Gates is a socialist. But I guess he must be … because he uses HIS money to give poor kids a free ride to college. As do those who contribute to the endowments of private colleges. Until this thread opened my eyes, I never considered that those who have more and C-H-O-O-S-E to use their money to assist those who have less were actually threatening the very core democratic values of our country.</p>
<p>I learn something new every day.</p>
<p>I also learned that I do not deserve to receive the help I am receiving from my D’s university’s private endowment. My H and I apparently have lived our lives in such a way that we have achieved below our inherent abilities. As such, we have not “earned” the right to be assisted in affording college. Funny, though … I never EXPECTED a dime. I was, however, quite thankful for being offered a few dimes. Had we not received them, my D would be attending a school we could pay for without help. Guess if we were truly patriotic, we would have turned down the financial aid from the private & sent her elsewhere.</p>
<p>Just so y’all know … the $24k EFC on $100k income and no savings is NOT easy to come up with. I daresay it’s at least as much a stretch for me as the $50k on double the income & far more savings is for you. But I am glad to know that it’s all irrelevant, anyway. The important thing is that your kid be rewarded for working hard.</p>
<p>
It’s not envy. No one wishes to be poor, that’s ridiculous.</p>
<p>It’s anger - at a system that makes it impossible for the middle class to have the same opportunities we had as kids without destroying ourselves financially. It’s anger at colleges we went to that have increased costs at 2 or 3 times the rate of inflation for 20+ years, and are now impossible to afford. It’s anger at ourselves for not having figured out some way to work even harder/smarter to make more money so we can provide the same opportunities to our kids that we had.</p>
<p>My son got into Hopkins. Hopkins!!! But to go there, either he or we will have to take on over 6 figures in debt, because they offered ZERO in aid. Do you have ANY idea how much it p***es me off to have to tell him he can’t go there because we can’t afford it, and it is crazy to take on that much debt?</p>
<p>So why shouldn’t I feel resentment towards anyone whose tuition I would be subsidizing, when I can’t afford it without bankrupting myself?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and some of that sense of entitlement is coming from the parents.</p>
<p>There is no rule that says, “Your kids are entitled to go to an expensive university, even if you yourself went to one, especially if you yourself went to one.”</p>
<p>I find it interesting that those who are crying, “Socialism! Socialism!” are doing so not because they did get aid, but because they are angry that they didn’t. If they’d gotten the financial aid they apparently thought they were entitled to (because… they went to a private college? don’t know), they wouldn’t be angry; they’d likely have accepted the aid.</p>
<p>Apparently I offended people when I implied that the FA model at many of our elite Universities is socialist. It is uncomfortable to say so, because as fellow citizens, we should all hope the best for each other. And Higher education is a wonderful thing, however, I don’t believe it is a Right granted by our Constitution and form of government. Citizens have the freedom to go and achieve anything they desire. This has always been the American way. It does not give individuals rights (“entitlements”) that require others to pay for if they can’t themselves. Of course, charity is a wonderful thing. We should all help each other out whenever we can. But when it becomes required, it is no longer charity. </p>
<p>In an earlier post, I quoted Marx, with a few insertions to apply to this FA situation. Here it is again, in its original form: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This seems to be the essence of what many of you here are saying. If people believe Higher education is a basic right that must and should be subsidized by others, why stop there? Housing, cars, food, clothing, health care–make all of these things priced according to what the person can afford, based on how much money they or their parents have. Where would it end? After college and grad school? Why then? Should everything be priced to level the playing field? What if the graduates choose careers that aren’t as lucrative as others? Instead of pricing things differently, should all careers be compensated the same? </p>
<p>On the other hand, if an education is an investment for the future, why shouldn’t every young adult start out with the same personal, financial stake in its cost? Under the current FA model, they are not starting out on an equal footing. Where is the equality here? </p>
<p>Food for thought.</p>
<p>To those who have responded that if we don’t like it we should pick a different school, you’re exactly right. We will. </p>
<p>And I will continue to wonder how long these schools will survive if they lose the support of those who are paying the high price.</p>
<p>kentucky, you’re bitter at the system but all you’re doing is punishing the kids who can’t afford it. </p>
<p>You’re absolutely right. Only the rich should have access to the best higher education. The rich should only get richer and the poor should only get poorer. </p>
<p>But I should not have access to the best education possible because my parents were high school drop outs? How exactly was that my fault? But, you’re right. I should be punished for their mistakes. </p>
<p>I am 18. I have not yet obtained the resources to attend a 50k college, so I need help because I have none from my parents. I am not attending a private college because I cannot afford it, and that kills me. But, I am grateful that I am able to go to a local state school because I have financial aid. Yes, I am GRATEFUL for financial aid. Over half of my tuition is paid for by scholarships I have won, but I could not afford that extra 10k if it weren’t for financial aid, and I am going to a PUBLIC STATE school. Should we cut off aid to there too? Should I have access to no higher education other than a local CC?</p>
<p>Just because your daughter wants to work her way through school, doesn’t mean it’s possible for all of us. Be grateful that you have the CHOICE to cut your daughter off, most of our parents do not have that luxury.</p>
<p>romanigypsyeyes, I hate to throw a wrench in your reasoning process, but I did not come from a wealthy family. I worked my way through a state college. And continued to work hard until I became “rich”. I didn’t get “poorer”. I wasn’t “punished” for my parent’s mistakes. I made, and suffered through, my own.</p>
<p><q>And I will continue to wonder how long these schools will survive if they lose the support of those who are paying the high price.<\q></q></p>
<p>This confuses me, because I am under the impression that at very few schools (if any) does the tuition cover the actual cost of educating the student. I know that most state schools are somewhat subsidized by their state governments. I know that most big name (need blind) private schools rely on their endowments to subsidize at least part of the cost of educating <i>every</i> student.</p>
<p>This is an old study from 2001 but here is some data</p>
<p>However, despite the high cost of tuition, another study out last week by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) showed that tuition does not come close to covering the actual cost of a college education.</p>
<p>NACUBO has been studying the tuition as part of its Cost of College Project, which hopes to define a formula for figuring out the true cost of a college education to the institution and includes everything from research and faculty salaries to electricity and heating costs.</p>
<p>Although final results are not due until next year, the organization released preliminary information during its annual conference last week.</p>
<p>NACUBOs project, which studied the actual cost of an undergraduate education at more than 140 colleges and universitiesincluding about 10 community collegesfound only two private colleges where tuition exceeded the cost of the education.</p>
<p>Private, four-year schools usually spent between 10,000 and 40,000 dollars to educate one student for a year.</p>
<p>At some schools, that number exceeded tuition by up to 20,000 dollars.</p>
<p>In the same vein, public universities usually spent 7,000 to 15,000 dollars per undergraduate, with tuition covering only about half the cost in some cases.</p>
<p>The NACUBO survey did not include room or board charges.</p>
<p>At Harvard, the Office of Financial Aid says that it costs upwards of $50,000 per year to educate an undergraduate. While tuition covers much of that figure, the shortfall is covered by funds from the endowment, donors, and federal grants.</p>
<p>So while I understand that KM is upset that some are getting something for free that she or her DD must pay for, I think it is important to note that almost everyone’s education is being subsidized by someone.</p>
<p>KM, no, but you are saying that the only reason that someone with as much academic talent as your daughter cannot go to a top elite private university is because they cannot afford it. How is that not punishment for something I have no control over?</p>
<p>
Should my kid be punished for his parents’ “success”? Because that’s what it feels like. We are expected to come up with the whole $250K for private school because in the school’s mind we are rich/wealthy, when in reality that would leave me almost insolvent, forget about when kid #2 gets to college in a few years.</p>
<p>
Harvard is an anomaly, nothing they say about costs is applicable to the real world. Harvard could give <em>every</em> student <em>free</em> tution, r+b, books, and fees, for about 1% of their endowment every year.</p>
<p>Plus, r+b is a significant profit center not factored into that study. Charging $10K+ per year for a one room in a rooming house is borderline criminal, especially when most dorms are old old old and have long been paid for. And charging $10+/meal when preparing food in institutional quantities leaves plenty of profit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) If your kid can get into schools like that, they can get scholarships to help lessen the cost. </p>
<p>2) If it is decided that you can take pay all 250k out of pocket, then you are not bad-off. You can at least make a dent in that, and the rest can be in loans if need be. My parents, however, can NOT make any kind of dent in that and it would all be in loans, again minus the scholarships I have gotten.</p>
<p>Also:</p>
<p>
Wrong, they are subsidized by the taxpayers. Same as with local schools. Not too many people have a problem with this.</p>
<p>Overall that is a very poorly written article:</p>
<p>
The only numbers they give to support this is in “only 2 out of 140” colleges does tuition exceed cost, and “At some schools, that number exceeded tuition by up to 20,000 dollars.” So on average what percentage of costs are covered by tuition? This number is nowhere to be found. What percentage does tuition cover 95%? 90% 80% 50%?</p>
<p>I don’t think most private schools have the endowment for tuition to not cover close to their costs.</p>
<p>kentuckymom, you’re choosing another school because of no financial aid at Vandy?</p>
<p>
Nope. As I mentioned above, my kid got into Hopkins, they offered zero. Virtually all the external scholarships we looked at that can make a dent are need-based as well. And they tend to use the same definitions of “need” as the schools.
Except I can’t pay that out of pocket. Either my kid or I will have to take on $100,000+ in debt for him to go there. No school is worth that.</p>
<p>I probably seem like I am whining. And my kid does have other choices that offered him some merit aid (although he will still have debt when he graduates), and the state school is decent and cheap enough that I can pay the whole amount without any loans. But it is aggravating to have your kid’s choices limited by an institution’s decision that you have a certain level of wealth when you don’t. And you wonder how much of your tuition would be subsidizing other people when even $10k in non-loan aid might make the difference between attending or not. No one in my income bracket is asking for a free ride, or is even unwilling to substantially contribute, but no help at all is burdensome to the point of making it impossible to attend. For all my alleged “riches”, my kid is going to have to settle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not saying I don’t feel bad for your child, I do. I came off sounding a lot more attacking than I meant to, and for that I apologize. </p>
<p>How it meant to come out is- it is not fair that we, the children of poverty parents, should have to take out the 250k in loans when other people can help subsidize our costs. I am NOT saying that we should have full rides (although I personally was lucky enough to get one from a good state school), but I am saying that we should have some financial aid and we too should be forced to take out loans, but not 250k when others have to take out a fraction of that because they came from better-off situations.</p>
<p>I too am angry at the system and the costs that are attached to it. There are many times when I wish that my parents would have allowed me to remain in England when I was young so that I wouldn’t have this problem of not being able to pay. But, that is the system.</p>
<p>Also, there are many, many merit-based scholarships out there. I only got 1 semi-need-based scholarship (the KFC scholars) and the rest were merit-based, and I probably could not have gotten into Hopkins with my stats.</p>
<p>
I force myself to step back and look at the big picture before I get too worked up - everyone in my family is healthy, we have jobs in this economy (so far - knock on wood), I have a nice house in a nice town with excellent school systems, etc. My life definitely does not suck.</p>
<p>And if the worst thing that happens is my kid can’t go to Hopkins and “settles” for another top-50 school, well… it’s not the end of the world.</p>
<p>And the more people that can go to college, the better. It benefits everyone. I give you a lot of credit for having the drive and motivation to get there.</p>