<p>I would be greatly offended if anyone told me that I can afford to pay approximately $180,000 for my son’s college education and therefore should not accept any merit aid. Yes I have earned and saved enough to make this possible but don’t tell me that I now have a moral obligation to spend all of this money. Similarly, I wouldn’t make the value judgment about anyone else. </p>
<p>At what income/asset level are you too rich to shop at Walmart? At what level of income are you morally obligated to pay MSRP for your new car instead of getting a discount through Carsdirect.com? How rich do you have to be to decline the 20% off if you wander into Saks 5th Avenue on super sale day? I have heard anecdotally that some very rich people still shop for bargains. That mentality may have helped them get rich in the first place.</p>
<p>While I can appreciate some of the perspectives here, I do think that maybe this kid (from the original story) decided that he, in fact, wanted to own his education, in the sense that he was smart enough and had worked hard enough, that he wanted to be recognized for that. Maybe he wanted to earn his education on his own, instead of sitting back and having big daddy continue to write the checks for him. There’s nothing difficult, or morally superior, in having big daddy (or big mamma) write out those full freight checks; in fact, I think that option would be a lot easier for this kid.</p>
<p>jack: There definately can be a sense of independence in kids who fund their own education no matter how they do it or how much the folks can afford.</p>
<p>I agree, but only in today’s financial aid context/climate.</p>
<p>There is no shame anymore in accepting, and even “gaming” the system for tuition handouts. And for some reason, taking out loans and repaying them to actually pay for your education is seen as a bad thing. (Huh?) </p>
<p>And as I intimated before, in our current system, the low-strivers/achievers are rewarded with free education while the financially responsible are left out in the cold.</p>
<p>Sorry jack. I was trying to come up with a diplomatic way of saying a low-income slacker, because I know many people will take offense to that characterization. But that is what I meant.</p>
<p>Curious14: Actually just wonderig if down the road there will be senior senior discount. But really I am a lot younger than I look and way younger than I feel. Maybe once young young son is off to college I will regain a youthful glow and pretend I can’t use my AARP card.</p>
<p>What about retired folks? Are they “low-income slackers” to you, Bay? Seriously, some people on this thread need to get a grip. Wealthy people should not try to game the merit aid system. There are people at my school who take ACT/SAT courses just so they can get good scholarships at state schools, even though their parents can pay. Someone who doesn’t have the money for these courses is not going to be able to get the same scores (unless they study a lot on their own, but maybe they’re out supporting their family, instead). </p>
<p>I really don’t think it’s fair that people are making statements like the financially responsible are “left out in the cold”. No, they aren’t. They have money. They can pay for their children’s education. If they don’t want to, well, sucks for the kids. I feel sorry for the kids whose parents think they are above paying for an education for their children. </p>
<p>And for a lot of people here, “low income slacker” could mean several things. There is no diplomatic way of saying it. Just say that you think poor people don’t deserve free education because they haven’t earned their keep – that’s essentially what you ARE saying. </p>
<p>Wow, there are so many people in America who think capitalism is a reason for giving more money to the rich. I’m sorry, but I thought it was more important for everyone to be able to afford an education. Rich people can afford it. Middle-class people will manage – there are always state schools. Poor people cannot manage unless they get federal funding or need-based aid. For all the rugged individualism that America stands for, it sure does produce a lot of people who look down on poor people.</p>
<p>I never said anything about giving more money to the rich. What I do object to is the “entitlement” mentality that has replaced the Protestant work ethic in America.</p>
<p>If the state u is good enough for the middle class and rich (in your opinion) then why isn’t it good enough for the poor? And why shouldn’t there be some sort of repayment or sacrifice by EVERYONE who recieves financial aid for college?</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see what side of the merit equation posters are at. Are their views colored by either receiving or not receiving meit awards. If so were the awards large or small? Speaking as a member of the middle class, whos kids received significant awards, I have no problem with them accepting the awards. They worked hard for 4 years, achieved a lot, contributed a lot to their school and community and sacrificed a bunch and I feel they were properly rewarded. I always thought that was part of American culture - work hard and be rewarded. They never took extra SAT classes, had college coaches or advisors - so where is the problem? Maybe not everyone, but most people do have a shot at the brass ring if they work for it. Just my two cents.</p>
<p>Murky: I hear ya, but I think most kids take SAT/ACT tests to get high scores to improve their chances of getting in any college. Since most schools require the test shouldn’t a kid try to do well on it ?(neither of my kids took a review course. Got a cheap book). Also how is it the fault of the kids for wanting to take advantage of a scholarhsip at a state school? The schools are trying to keep their best and brightest in state. Also, do not forget that many of the people whom you criticize probably pay a bunch of the state taxes that go to the school. I do not see how it is wrong on the the part of a kid to try. Do you think a well off (whatever that means) person should have to pay full price for a car or list price for a house?</p>
<p>ST2: I am for merit money even if kids does not get any. If two schools are equal though, I do not think it is noble to turn one down because they offer a free ride. That money would just go to another kid and one does not know that he/she is poor and or deserving. It will not stop the school from providing merit aid.</p>
<p>“What I do object to is the “entitlement” mentality that has replaced the Protestant work ethic in America.” and</p>
<p>“If the state u is good enough for the middle class and rich (in your opinion) then why isn’t it good enough for the poor? And why shouldn’t there be some sort of repayment or sacrifice by EVERYONE who recieves financial aid for college?”</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree with this more Bay. Very well said. Amen.</p>
<p>I was poor when going to a public UC college. Thanks to the money paid by the middle class californian taxpayers, I was able to get Cal grant, work study, National Direct Student Loan and Guaranteed Student Loan. I made through college and paid back the loan in less than 10 years and I was happy with that. I don’t know why there are so many people say they are poor and expect the public to pay for them to go to the elite private colleges. Why poor students don’t want to take loans and expect children of the middle classes to have loans? Is it a crime to be born in a middle class family? This is not a socialist country.</p>