@ucbalumnus , not sure your last post added anything meaningful. If it’s a shame, it’s a shame. I don’t think it’s less of a shame a given scenario shared by another poster that involves a controlling father who doesn’t want his kid to leave home/town even though he could afford it.
I’m probably a bit more mindful or sensitive now to the reality that many people can’t afford that advantage having had this exchange with you. Happy to acknowledge that if it means something to you. I still do not think it’s as black and white, as categorical, or as simple, as you seem to posit based on blunt macro statistics. There are often other factors that affect the outcome.
And is it “most”? Or is there a sizeable cohort who aren’t loaded, aren’t being chased by the Ivy League, and who also attend, say, schools like Willamette University, schools which usually tap out at about 80% of demonstrated need (including school loans)? A cohort who manages that opportunity with perhaps some combination of local scholarships/parent savings/their own summer savings/other family contributions, etc.? Your examples were to cite median income statistics, make no adjustment for where they live, and surmise that paying it would be “basically all of their income.” Well, nobody really does that, and yet not every kid at Puget Sound is, I promise you, wealthy.