<p>Emerald- the money has to come from some source.</p>
<p>Those tax write offs serve a purpose- a company is looking to build a facility which will bring 1,000 jobs to a city or community. More than half those jobs are for PhD’s or people with Master’s degrees. Do you decide that you don’t want to encourage companies like that to move to your area??? That you want a blighted empty lot on the outskirts of your downtown, or do you want a modern facility (built to a high environmental standards powered by solar panels on the roof, reusing water, and selling back energy to the utility) which employs 1,000 people, increases your payroll taxes, and encourages these people to move in and join the board of the library and volunteer for the Cancer walk and do all the things that they are likely to do???</p>
<p>My own community is facing this now. It has exposed the fact that someone’s “huge tax write off” is another person’s “once in a lifetime opportunity”. But for sure, our state’s commitment to the public universities has waned. Is it because of tax write off’s elsewhere?</p>
<p>I agree with you zoosermom. I don’t understand the idea that above an arbitrarily defined income level, no one is allowed to complain about college costs. What is the point in that? What “rings hollow” for one person is another’s reality. There are always people who have more money than you. So what? It means they are not allowed to vent their frustrations on an anonymous message board if you are reading it? The title of this thread provides the topic being discussed. If it offends you, don’t read it. That is your choice.</p>
<p>Oh, I think it’s one thing to whine about the cost – it IS high! I think it’s another thing to be resentful of poorer people just because they got aid and might pay less than your kid. I think that’s an entirely different thing. </p>
<p>It’s rather like the interminable threads about - it’s one thing to be sad / upset you didn’t get into your choice school, but it’s another thing to resent Susie down the block for getting in.</p>
Is it above an arbitrarily defined income level, or is it below? Because those above that level don’t need to whine and don’t necessarily want strivers getting in their way.
One could also say that the people who don’t need to whine have been very lucky in all sorts of ways, which isn’t necessarily a reflection of their intelligence or worthiness. I know several 1 percenters who did absolutely everything right (including the mentor who made it possible for me to reach the level I have without education, and who was the most frugal, responsible person I ever knew) who had incredible bad luck that no one could ever, ever have seen coming that wiped them out. Even when you are smart, educated, worthy and special, sometimes things happen. For those of us who haven’t had one of those devastating situations, we are all lucky.</p>
<p>Sally, there are a lot of people on this site with a lot of different realities. Many of us aren’t educated, upper-middle-class people. There is a lot of diversity here, but it seems that certain groups press the buttons of other people. Which is likely different for all of us.</p>
<p>So, I didn’t see any resentment of poorer people on this thread at all. And I have read pretty much the whole thing. I did see some projecting of that attitude onto a few posts. But, I didn’t read them that way.</p>
<p>The whole, “You had too many kids,” stuff is just strange and that’s where, “Well then what about so-and-so’s bad choices that caused their problems?” started. It’s actually logical, but easily misinterpreted I suppose.</p>
<p>That’s so wrong. Ridiculous. Every individual is different no matter where they came from. There are crappy poor kids who think the world owes them, and there are crappy rich kids who think they own the world. There are wonderful humans in both brackets as well. We have an EFC of $99,000, but my son had no idea. He worked 4 jobs last summer. Is he somehow less of a student?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Merit is merit. Need is need. They should have nothing to do with each other. You get a bonus for hard work and high performance. Can you imagine if “need” became a factor in the workplace bonus? Merit awards are an enticement to bring top performing students to a school. Why should need play a role in that?</p>
<p>Honestly, I think easy availability of loans is a well-intentioned but huge part of this problem. Check a box and you can be funded whether you can “afford” it or not. There are plenty of stories of people whining about huge college debt, too.</p>
<p>Without loans and without state funding, how are public colleges, which enroll the overwhelming majority of students in this country, supposed to function?</p>
<p>Geez, I didn’t say there shouldn’t be ANY loans. But currently there is no such thing as qualifying for loans. Large ones. Kinda like when everyone could buy a nice house no matter their income. Then, the bubble burst.</p>
<p>Every year in the spring there’s at least one story in our paper about a kid who grew up in dreadful circumstances, and who is now going to (fill in name of wonderful college) all expenses paid. Here’s one that stuck with me [She</a> finally has a home: Harvard - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/20/local/me-harvard20]She”>She finally has a home: Harvard) but if you google on homeless girl Harvard you can see many more.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’d always read those stories to my kids. Because yes, those other kids were carrying the sack of potatoes. </p>
<p>Our family has been incredibly fortunate; my kids are/will be going to their top choice schools without regard to cost. It could so easily have gone the other way. You can’t fully protect yourself against random bad luck like serious illness (even with insurance the loss of an income changes living standards), a kid with special needs, a surprise kid (or surprise multiple birth), the stock market tanking, etcetcetc. Good choices help immensely, but they’re not some sort of 100% effective magic shield.</p>
<p>“That’s so wrong. Ridiculous. Every individual is different no matter where they came from. There are crappy poor kids who think the world owes them, and there are crappy rich kids who think they own the world. There are wonderful humans in both brackets as well. We have an EFC of $99,000, but my son had no idea. He worked 4 jobs last summer. Is he somehow less of a student?”</p>
<p>I SO agree with this post!!</p>
<p>My parents were lower middle class. My entire childhood was lived in a house under construction, without a furnace, in conditions that poor people don’t even live in today. They paid for the first quarter of community college. So what? I didn’t know I had a 50 lb sack of potatoes on my back (though I do know I have a 10 lb one around my lower half right now). It had zip to do with what kind of a student I was, and what my future success would be. Even being a mediocre student had zip to do with my future, it was completely based upon desire and persistence.</p>
<p>I resent the idea that because someone doesn’t make XX dollars, that their children are deemed disadvantaged and are carrying a burden of future failure with them, (though I don’t resent financial aid). The sack of potatoes they carry has more to do with how their parents raise them (or lack of parents), than anything.</p>
<p>Busdriver, on an individual basis, what you say is true, but it is a known direct relationship that those coming from well to do families will do better than than those who do not. It is a strikingly clear direct relationship. Yes, there are exceptions, always exceptions but that is the way it works when you examine large populations of both. </p>
<p>I can give reasons aplenty for why this is, but that part one can’t directly prove. It’s just a given fact.</p>
<p>I believe chance for success is more due to issues such as parents educational level, single parent (and if so, is the father involved), age of the mother when she gave birth, etc. Of course all those things factor into a families income, so income may be an easier way to determine success, but I really don’t believe that lower income=failure, and higher income=success. I would be willing to bet that a family with one parent staying home, and the other parent as a teacher, while making a fairly low income, the children will have a high level of educational success.</p>
<p>A complicating factor in these statistics is that higher income failure is not so apparent. The crash is cushioned but it’s still a crash. And, it happens plenty.</p>
<p>PG lucky for you that your second salary was enough to fully fund private colleges for your kids. </p>
<p>As annoying as some find whining about how hard it is not be able to pay full price for college, it is equally annoying to have some assume that since they were able to save and be full pay anywhere, those of us who haven’t met that goal MUST have lived above our means in order to keep up with the Jones. Very presumptuous. </p>
<p>One of the issues is that while the full pay COA has gone up dramatically (over 50% in the last 10 years), the actual amount paid by most families has gone up much more slowly. This means that colleges have continued to up their costs. but provide more aid. Thus, the relative difference in the amount paid by full pay families has gone up much faster. Even when my oldest started college (with merit $$ at a good university with the COA under $40K), I never imagined I would be facing a COA in the mid-60Ks for my youngest (HS class of 2015). </p>
<p>Of course private college is a luxury. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the Flagship State U is not a good alternative in many states. Some kids can’t get in. Some flagships are much lower in rank/prestige then the student is qualified for. Some kids would not do as well in a college with over 30,000 students as they would in a smaller college. I have not heard anyone here saying that it is harder to be comfortable, than to be poor. </p>
<p>In fact, for most poor students, it is local CC or local U and not graduating. Our East Coast flagship is too expensive for many working class families. CC can be good, but from what I have read it is very easy to become derailed and not finish. This is one of the major impediments for poor student getting out of poverty.</p>
<p>I do not complain about my circumstances, although I wish I could send my kids to whatever school they want to go (no cost to wishing). I must admit to some frustration over the COA, that my overall college costs will be higher because my kids don’t overlap at all, that schools do not take into account the difference in living expenses on a coast versus the middle of the country, and that for some divorced parents, there are ways to eliminate consideration of one income (although for others the step-parents income has to be considered which may not be fair easy). Life is not always fair and there is no way to make the system fair in all circumstances. But we can afford to send our kids somewhere decent for college and that is what matters. I still would argue, however, that the cost of college is ridiculous and that something has to be give.</p>
<p>It is a fact that socio-economic status is a predictor of future success, including simply attending schools with that characteristic. Which is why people making $250k may go to great expense to buy a house in an expensive area or send their kids to the best private school. Often, making this choice for their kids when young means they will be squeezed when their kids make it to good colleges and they feel they can’t afford it. It certainly was their choice to go that route, but trying to do the best for your kids is no cause for scorn or censorship.</p>