<p>I see a noticable difference in admission’s this year with money playing a big part. Students with better stats getting turned down while inferior stats with no need getting admitted. More and more, it is the year of the “Super Rich” and the “Poor”. I think zip code makes a difference in admission in some private schools. </p>
<p>Often, we hear posters pontificate on “you need to go to your state public”. Well, that is getting increasingly difficult as applications sky rocket in part due to the scenario laid out by the Duke. </p>
<p>So middle class parents are forced to take our PLUS loans because they were negligent in saving. Give me a break! Life happens and saving is typically limited in early years of a students life as income’s are lower than the peak years most parents are in while college looms closer. College costs soar while incomes flatten and the market eats away the little bit that we have saved. A couple more years like 2008 and you will really see the financial aid system completely out of balance.</p>
<p>Let’s face it, the Georgetowns, Vanderbilts and other mega privates are not interested in the middle class anymore. I know of several families here in the Washington DC area (high cost) with salaries between 100-150k who received the back of the hand from private schools when it came to financial aid. One kid got into Hopkins and recieved a total financial aid package of zippy; he’s going to UVA. Another is also going to UVA having turned down a similar situation with CMU. Seems these schools see the only difference between families in the 100-150k income range and someone like Bill Gates is ZIPPY. Where were these schools making their financial assessments of my ability to pay back when my D was born when I was making 25k a year? Or 10 years later when I was up to 80k? Bogus</p>
<p>I was assuming a net income. $30,000 - $50,000 could still be possible with taxes. It’s all about living frugally. It can be done comfortably.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not fair, but that’s the truth. Colleges are assuming that if you have a middle class income and you are looking into very expensive schools - as opposed to state schools, community college options, and cheaper schools - that YOU have a financial plan laid out. It isn’t the colleges job to pay tuition for you. When colleges do pick up the tap for some students, they do so as a way to serve their own means, to create diversity, to relieve financial stress where THEY feel it is undue, and as a means to serve the lower classes. I’m not saying it’s fair. I’m saying it’s expected.</p>
<p>The basic rule of college admissions is access increases with wealth.
Whether it goes from $30,000 to $50,000 or $90,000 to a million,
the basic rule holds true. For middle income people at lest you have
options as difficult as they may be. For the vast majority of low income
apps there are few, if any options other than the local cc, commuting or
a job.</p>
<p>To the OP – your attribution of 30% extra value to the grants (turning a $50K grant into a $72K benefit based on the “tax” you attribute to that amount) - is interesting as part of a mathematical model, but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in terms of our current tax system. The $40K earner is in no way in a 30% marginal tax bracket - and the tax bracket IS marginal, meaning that only a fraction of earnings is taxed at the highest rate.</p>
<p>It is far more likely that the $40K earner pays little or no income taxes, although his full earnings are subject to employment taxes (FICA, etc.). The $150K earner is coming out WAY ahead in your model, because the $40K earner must live on his take-home pay (well under $40K) – whereas the $150K earner is left with at least twice as much money in the end. This is especially true because you subtracted out a value for “rich guy” that you added in for “poor guy”. You say, poor guy has $40K + intangible (education) worth $72K in rich guy dollars. (Only worth $50K in poor-guy dollars, however) – and call that $112K.</p>
<p>Then you say rich guy has to pay $72K to buy the $50K education (ok, assuming he pays with the last $72K he earns) – and you argue that he is no reduced to $78K because what? his son’s education is worth 0? </p>
<p>Seems to me that EITHER poor guy ends up with $40K and rich guy ends up with $78K (if you disregard the cost of education for both) – or poor guy has maybe $100K and rich guy breaks even with $150K if you add in the value of the education, taking into account that the rich guy ends up being taxed at a higher marginal rate. </p>
<p>How about this? Why don’t they split the difference? Rich guy is required to transfer $55K of his earnings to poor guy, so both earn $95K. After all – you said that both " get up, shave, and go to work and work hard to make livings for their families every day". If we want the world to be absolutely fair, why should poor guy get paid any less for his hard work than rich guy? Now that they have split the difference, neither has a 0 EFC – lets assume that Georgetown now gives each family a $25K grant and they have to pay the rest out of pocket. I am sure that poor guy will probably be very happy with this new arrangement! And how can rich guy complain? You want each to get the same benefit, right? You’ve obliged by reducing rich guy’s marginal tax rate (no more 30%!) - and he’s only out of pocket $25K to pay for his kid’s $50K education. That leave $70K, less whatever he has to pay in taxes – a vast improvement over the $100K (less taxes) that he had before, right? oh, wait…</p>
<p>If Duke’s fam is making over 200K, what are they spending it on that they have not saved some money for college? Seriously, over 20K per month in income, and they can’t pay for college?? Are there extenuating circumstances, such as grandparents or a disabled parent? </p>
<p>Would one of these wealthy people who can’t afford college kindly lay out their monthly expenses?</p>
That’s the same with my son. Accepted to three great privates that he won’t be able to attend. They really don’t want him, apparently. Is there “holistic” financial aid? I think so. He doesn’t have the “hooks” to get good financial aid.</p>
<p>I don’t know that I have a better solution but it is problematic (especially this year) that an EFC is based on last years income + savings + assets. Since your EFC goes up when you have significant savings the VALUE of saving (unless you can save it all 200,000k) is questionable, anyways.</p>
<p>But in our case, we have only had 2 workers for the past 6 years. Before that we lived on a teachers salary (about 35k) and the kids qualified for reduced lunch. We have grad school debts to pay off and have moved twice. AND the little bit of savings we had was decimated in September.</p>
<p>Okay…so like so many people, our FAFSA isn’t a picture of our real economic situation. That’s true for so many.</p>
<p>How do you balance it? How does a financial aid office figure it all out? What’s fair? Because limiting an education to those who can afford the full-price is going to limit the opportunities of bright kids who can’t afford even state college prices.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I know many in the OPs situation and I don’t think ANYONE can really afford to pay 20-40% of their income for so long!!</p>
<p>So, do we further stratify American society but making money the deciding factor in educational opporunity? </p>
<p>Sure, lots of people can. It’s always more possible at a higher income, provided you keep the same living expenses you might have at a lower income. We routinely paid a third or more of our income when kids were in college, and often saved another third at the same time. But that’s our priorities; if you have others, you make other choices.</p>
<p>The lower income family, which may be working just as hard, or harder, doesn’t have the same choices.</p>
<p>The unmet need for a $40,000 family income at Pa State colleges
is over $10,000, more at Penn STate. Add into that the EFC of
about $2200, a student loan of $5,500 and you have a bill of
more than 40% of yearly family income. That bill increases every
year. Many families find a way to do that - they have few or no
other options. So, yes, even at lower incomes people pay the bill.
BTW for a family with a family income of $100,000 the unmet need
is around $23,000 at those state colleges, less than 25% of family
income and at an income of $250,000 that percentage would be
less than 10% - that’s why public colleges are filling up with wealthier
apps - state subsidized ed for wealthier Americans.</p>
<p>I think Fafsa should take into consideration the last 3 -5 years of income. This would stop people from being able to shift bonuses, etc. for their base year income, and would allow others who have not had their income level for years to show why they might not have saved as much as would be expected on their current income. For the past 20 years my part of our income has been at 60% of what it is this year–so my EFC is actually almost $5000 higher than it would have been if we had been filing the previous year. If I had actually had that $5000 in increased EFC the past 20 years saved, my D would be getting to go to her #1 choice. Bad timing on my part paying for colleges, but it is better than all the loans we would have been offered. </p>
<p>And Garland–I did not increase my living expenses when I got the full-time position. I knew this money was going to be expected to go straight to college with 2 in school next year.</p>
<p>Yeah, me too. So many posters on CC, though, argue that they have higher expenses at higher incomes, like it was mandated–that was what I was addressing.</p>
<p>speedo, lets say the family’s income is about 100k and their efc is between 23-33k (depending upon assets, profile vs. fafsa etc.). If the instate public costs 21k, and the private U. gaps, piles on the loans, and wants the family to pay their efc of perhaps 27k, this might be why the public U is filled with wealthy students. It depends upon which perspective you have. As I said, this is a broken system. Oh, and don’t think that the instate public is not happy to have the full 21k from the guy with an efc of 27k. That deal is a win win for the school and for the upper middle class/wealthy family. The party who is not happy watching this play out is the poor person who has been gapped by the public U. and has lots of loans, as well as the private U. who would love to increase their yield and squeeze every last cent and then some out of the the person with the efc of 27,000 to fill a seat with someone who has less need than the next guy with an efc of 1,700. Ideally that private U. would like a full paying student to fill lots of seats, especially in this economy (they must love seeing efcs of 50k+).</p>
<p>@LindaCarmichael: Read more closely before flaming, please. Duke said his (her?) parents make $100-150K, not “over $200K” as you said. Just because you can live wherever you live on $50K, does not mean that applies everywhere. </p>
<p>And since you brought this up, let me say that my parents – who also make mid-100’s – don’t owe you an explanation of their expenses, any more than you owe an explanation as to why you, unlike my parents, did not work harder and maybe go to school nights and work your way up to get ahead in life so that your income put you into the awesome position of being asked to finance others’ educations rather than having them finance yours. </p>
<p>I see you and others on here have bought into the Obama socialist myth that $150K makes one wealthy and that it is upon the middle class’s back to fund those that “have not”. Some of those that “have not” simply chose to do other things rather than do what was required to “have”. </p>
<p>The question stands: Why should people who worked hard to gain a position in life where they make some amount more than you do, end up giving it back to you because for whatever reasons you did not figure out how to, or chose not to, earn enough to pay your own way? Seems like you have no issue with someone paying their own way when it comes to me. You should try it.</p>
<p>Why the rigid line between FA qualifying and FA non qualifying. Why once AGI is 150K or so does the student suddenly cross a line into territory where he is categorized with the children of gazillionaires? There is just as big a difference between a household income of $200k and $2million K as between $200K and $20k.</p>
<p>I think if we are to have FA, we should treat it like income taxes - progressive. Charge everyone 10 percent of their income to attend, for example. The guy earning $25K pays $2500. The guy earning $250K pays $25K and the guy earning $2.5 million pays $250K.</p>
<p>I think we might see the budget at schools responding quite well.</p>
<p>^^^ but then we would put all those FA officers out of work. And you would STILL get the people who said, ‘I made X last year but this year I’m going to make X-Y so I can’t afford X/10’</p>
<p>I do think there should be an average of a couple of years income. Also, the government uses locality tables for their pay scale (at least in my federal job). It wouldn’t be unreasonable to apply a similar formula to incomes. My income went from 35-70 over the past decade. I live in a higher locality area than say Kentucky, but less than NYC.</p>
<p>But trying to apply LOGIC to a government policy will drive you INSANE</p>
<p>To expand a little on what umbofever09 said:</p>
<p>My H and I both work; professional jobs that pay well. We live comfortably, but also below our means, so we have managed to build up some savings….the perfect storm of high income / savings so that our EFC is at the max, there will be no need-based aid for my family. That’s okay, we’ll pay for our own kids. We’ll make the decision regarding how much we are willing to pay, and choose colleges accordingly. I “get it” that my kids are lucky to have options open to them that others don’t, but…</p>
<p>Maybe my kids are lucky to be born to the parents they have, BUT it sure wasn’t “luck” that got us into this position. DH and I have been working at this since we graduated HS (separately at first, then as a team when we met ~20 years ago). We went to college/grad school, relocated from our respective hometowns to find work, made the decisions to keep both parents working, drive older cars, take simple vacations, etc. Our jobs, salaries, and savings did not fall into our laps.</p>
<p>Now compare our family to that of my coworker. H makes a good salary, but W doesn’t work. She was close to having a degree about 18 years ago, but dropped out because she lost interest. Got married, had kids, made the decision to be a SAHM. Sent the kids to private school for eight years each. Spends more on vacations than we do. Fine. I respect those decisions. Their money – they can spend it how they like. But why does my coworker feel the need to tell me that “only you rich people can afford private college”? </p>
<p>My family sacrificed a certain quality of life when I went back to work; his family will probably sacrifice some college options. Why is one sacrifice so much worse than the other? Why does society have to make it possible for his kids to go to their dream school?</p>
<p>Again, you seem to like to tell off the rich people abpout what to do with their money. In one previous post you refered to federal college money as “poor people’s money”. The federal college fund is not like section 8 housing, food stamps, or any other federal program where one has to meet certain guidelines to even apply to the program. We all get to apply for federal dollars for college. Some, if not many, even require it for merit and scholarship money. The OP has made an astute observation. You deny him that for any reasons.</p>
<p>I’d like to know why the hell private institutions are in the federal money programs anyway. Aren’t there tax breaks enough? And they want a more diverse student body. Let them pay for it themselves.</p>
<p>mrsref, if your coworker makes a “good salary” sends his kids to
private schools and takes expensive vacations, it’s likely (unless
he’s dealing drugs on the side) that when he sends in his fafsa,
he is also going to have some bad news. He’s almost certainly
going to be paying full price for publics and unless his kids
are lucky enough to get into Harvard or somewhere, he’s probably
paying big bucks for a private. Not such a great position to be in.
I doubt society will be much help in enabling his kids to go to their
dream school.</p>
<p>As for the op, “kill zone” theory, it’s pretty typical of the thinking
of a lot of posters and even some mod/supermods on this board.
The college crunch is now hitting middle class and upper middle
class families and they are feeling the pain. As Northeastmom,
said above, “the broken system” has now found it’s way upward to
middle class America and it’s only getting worse. We get the lashing
out a poor families and the fantasy that somehow the system is
providing them with huge access to the colleges of their choice,
or envy at the rich who can go where they want. </p>
<p>So to the op, the DukeofEarl, I say “welcome to America, man!”</p>
<p>What? Really? Where the heck do you live? I only qualified for reduced lunch, and that was with my single mom’s salary of $25,000 a year (with a sister also in the school system). I live in Maryland, BTW. Do you live in NY or something? I’m not bashing you, I’m just honestly curious. Wow!</p>