<p>Believe it or not, I was going to mention the “too far/no public transportation” issue in my last post! I got distracted & had to go, though, so didn’t include it. I agree with you on that, cpt.</p>
<p>The problem for the perfect system, of course, is money. Where will it come from? (I did ask a student where the Pell tree grows, but he couldn’t tell me … I am pretty sure it doesn’t actually exist)</p>
<p>Kelsmom, do you have any suggestions as to how private colleges that are good choices for those kids who are not prepared to go to the more rigorous schools can obtain the funds to serve the kids that need their services the most? My feelings are that those kids who have the stats and ability to get into the top schools are going to do well where ever they end up at schools. It’s those kids whose hold on higher education is more fragile and for whom it can make a big difference to get into a college that is a good fit for them that need the financial aid the most, and get it the least.</p>
<p>Take just one concept for instance: dividing the EFC by the number of children currently in college. On the one hand this is reasonable because it would strain budgets excessively for families to pay multiple EFCs for children in school at the same time. However, based on this rule, families with non-overlapping college time end up paying a higher cumulative EFC than families with kids who overlap in college. Should families really pay differently based on how far apart their children were born?</p>
<p>I agree that this idea is a bit odd. When I sent my kids to private K-12, I knew/expected that I would have to pay more when the second one went. I didn’t think, “Hey, they should cut each child’s costs in half so that I can still pay the total same.”</p>
<p>People should assume that they should have to pay out more when they have more kids in college. That’s life… If you have 2 in daycare, you don’t get a 2 for 1 deal.</p>
<p>*Those who do not have a state school or community college within a defined commutable distance, should have extended PELL money to cover most of the room and board. *</p>
<p>I can see that…but you’d then have people playing games and using incorrect addresses or using NCPs addresses to get that extra money.</p>
<p>A number of private schools (k-12) offer discounts when you have more than one child attending. When my kids were at a private independent school, the discount was 10% off the second and third children, and 25% off of the fourth and more. For those eligible for financial aid, tuitions paid to other private schools and colleges were taken into account in determining aid. Even some private programs such as music if they used the same need assessment metnod. Catholic schools are well known for giving multiple children discounts. Catholic colleges also often take into account siblings in Catholic, possibly other private schools (k-12). Many also give small discounts for those kids who went to Catholic high schools. Some private colleges also take into account, private k-12 tuition for siblings. Also, I know of a number of daycare and extracurricular programs that give sibling discounts if they are simultaneously attending. It’s not unusual at all.</p>
<p>What’s unusual about FAFSA is that the EFC is cut in half, rather than somewhat reduced as most of these other programs do. It makes sense that the formula is reduced since it very heavily depends on current (prior year’s) income rather than savings or assumption of future income. FAFSA makes no assumptions about the future, some regarding the past, but heavily counts on current income. It is also in line with human nature to meet the problem when it occurs so that when a family has two in college, it is going to have a cash crunch those years. </p>
<p>Looking at some of the college costs, having two in college can cost more than some upper middle class incomes with no problem at all.</p>
<p>We are talking PELL grant recipients, who would often would make out cash wise when they commute to school. Many colleges have a COA that is more than what it costs the student when s/he is living with family. I know a family whose son does pretty well with his PELL grant as he gets a ride with his father to college which is very close, he has his living expenses covered by mom at home, so after the fixed college fee and tuition, he actually has money in his pocket as he can “beat” the COA figures. For him to live away from school would mean that he would have to borrow money through the Staffords and also be somewhat gapped as full costs would not be subsidized in that arrangement as I see it. THere would be some abuse, as there always is, but I think it would be limited. The problem is getting the funding for this. People would scream bloody murder at my idea for that source. I would eliminate Stafford loans for those above a certain income/EFC and make those amounts available to that category. </p>
<p>I would also eliminate HeOG for private colleges charging over a certain amount in tuition, and offer them to those schools that cater to the PELL eligible kids.</p>
<p>I hate that the whole system is tied to the parent’s income/ assests and yet there is clearly no way that an 18 year old can force their parents to come up with what their EFC is.</p>
<p>There are a lot of kids who miss out on opportunities because their parents just won’t pay, and their only recourse is perhaps to go into tremendous debt (that is if the parents are even willing to sign for a loan.)</p>
<p>maybe the government should focus all its aid on schools that charge less than $25000/year in tuition…i can see some benefit in that, but again, not the best idea</p>
<p>*A number of private schools (k-12) offer discounts when you have more than one child attending. When my kids were at a private independent school, the discount was 10% off the second and third children, and 25% off of the fourth and more. *</p>
<p>A discount is one thing, but expecting to pay the SAME total amount is a bit crazy. And, that discount is for kids attending the SAME school. You don’t get that discount because your one child is attending one k-12 private school while your other child is attending another. </p>
<p>That said, my kids’ high school gave NO discount for multiple kids. My kids’ Alabama parish school did give a small discount for multiples and that discount was made up by the parish. And, many parish schools don’t give any discounts for multiples. Our Calif parish school gave no discount.</p>
<p>If the system allowed students whose parents won’t pay to receive aid that ignores the parents’ income/assets, then sign me up to be first in line to say I am not paying for my kids. I will be joined by thousands of other parents. The way I figure it, if we go to that system, I am paying for everyone else’s kids with my tax dollars … so why shouldn’t some of the redistribution of my wealth go to me?</p>
<p>Where would all of the money come if we expand and help everyone who feels they need the help? I can see expanding aid for SOME schools and SOME students - carefully selected - which would upset all who don’t get the aid, of course. As it is, we see students who COULD afford schools get mad because they aren’t “given” the money to go to the schools they would RATHER attend. Anyone who spends any time on CC knows that to be the truth.</p>
<p>I guess I am far too aware of how many people don’t think they are getting a fair shake, even when they are getting a darned good deal. That is why I don’t think “perfect” exists with “financial aid system.” That’s not to say that improvements can’t be made. But there will ALWAYS be someone unhappy … the family that thinks it should get more … the kid who doesn’t want to be expected to spend his large amount of savings to pay for school … the guy who doesn’t want to pay more taxes … etc.</p>
<p>Here are my few additions…</p>
<p>1) Stop looking at the parents’ financial situation. The way they do it is messed up, anyway. Over the past 6 years we have had several catagories of financial distress…out of pocket medical between $6,000-9,000 each of those years, my business has lost money every year but 1 when I “made” $3000, and ill elderly parents. Several of the Special Circumstances areas applied to us, so we sent in the forms/paperwork. We got a letter saying we DID qualify for legit special circumstances in several areas…then the new award was $4,000 more in parent loans as well as taking away our son’s $3,500 in work study!!! WHAT???
2) Let students be responsible for all of their college costs…my husband and I both did. College students are ADULTS and should act like it. I went to school full time, took out student loans, worked, didn’t depend on parents for anything (divorced and estranged from me, pretty much no help) and I made it. My education was more valuable to me because of it, too.</p>
<p>An example of why tmy additions make sense. Let’s say you make just under $45,000 and we make just over $45,000. Your kid and my kid both:</p>
<p>have ACT 30, GPA 3.6, attend $23,000 COA State University A</p>
<p>Because you make a bit under $45,000 your kid gets Pell and all the grants and scholarships that are available to your Pell eligible kid. </p>
<p>Because I make a bit over $45,000 my kid gets all loans except the $750 state stimulus grant and what he’s saved over the summer, almost $7,000. </p>
<p>Our kids are ready to graduate and sitting in the same interview line for the same civil engineering job. My kid has high debt relative to your kid’s very low debt. </p>
<p>What does the parent’s income have to do with anything now??? The day the kid enters the college campus, the playing field is level. Period. Please explain to me WHY the parent is in the mix…</p>
<p>^^Here’s more examples:</p>
<p>Kid A is from a divorced family, but is living with mom and grandparents in a very middle class existance. Mom never worked and was devoted to raising kid. Kid is excellent student, but not tippy top. Has a choice of great colleges and gets full scholarship through Questbridge to top (#2) liberal arts private school. Kid’s Debt: subsidized loans to go to dream college.</p>
<p>Kid B has 2 hard working parents. Top student. Parents combined income is just under 200K. Parents saved for college and can pay $20-25K a year. Luckily they can take advantage of paying 10% of income to send kid to ivy league school. Kid’s Debt: none to go to dream college.</p>
<p>Kid C has 2 hard working parents. Top student. Parents combined income is just over 200K. Parents saved for college and can pay $20 -25K a year. Kid gets into ivy league and decides to go for it. Kid’s Debt: $150K to go to dream college.</p>
<p>Kid D has 2 hard working parents. Top student. Parents combined income is over 200K. Parents didn’t save for college, but have luxury cars and take great vacations (without the kids.) Mom l;ooks great after boob job! Kid gets into ivy league and decides he cannnot take on $200K in debt. Kid’s debt: $80K to go to mediocre state school.</p>
<p>These scenerios can be played out different ways, in different communities across the US by many families and their children. The kids I mentioned above are real and all grew up in the same middle-upper middle class community.</p>
<p>Don’t know what the solution should be…but I do think that a system that is based on parent’s income is flawed.</p>
<p>When coming up with the perfect financial aid situation, bear in mind that the most needed component for most changes is a lot more money. What changes can be done without costing much or any money? How can the current system be transformed without paying more to be fairer and more effective? Clearly by giving everyone anything needed to pay for college would be ideal and perfect, but also not going to happen.</p>
<p>I think it is unfair that the parents are so instrumental in whether their kids can go to certain colleges, particularly those who brag that money is not an impediment and that they take the top kids regardless of financial situation. The financial situation that none of the schools recognize, even Harvard, are parents that have the means and do not pay.</p>
<p>I understand why this is so. No one will offer to pay if that out is given, that of a parent refusing to pay making a kid eligible for aid. There is not enough money for schools,even the top ones to have everyone go for free. That is the problem, and if willingness to pay is a factor, you will get unwilling parents that quickly.</p>
<p>It should be made absolutely clear to kids that college is really an extension of high school. You don’t hear outcries of how unfair that private k-12 schools are pretty much totally dependent on the parents’ willingess to pay for their kids. You don’t find that boarding at school is such an essential. It is funny that suddenly the year after grade 12, it is so imperative for families who have sent their kids to the public high school that their kid goes to a private college, lives there, and that the college or government should pay for this. </p>
<p>The government has done a decent job in having provisions for those who are truly needy to go to college. Most all kids can go to a local state school, community college with the PELL and Staffords. What they do not get is their living expenses paid for them. Why should they unless there is some severe dysfunction in the family that the student really needs to leave? That provision probably should be placed for those students who are needy. But we don’t subsidize room and board for non college kids of that age that would also have dysfunctional homes where they would do better getting away.<br>
The private schools have become a huge business. Undergraduate education is not the main focus of many of these schools so the endowment is not going to be hit too hard with subsidizing the tuition so everyone goes for free. Some of the schools like Rice that used to be real bargains because they used so much of their endowment to keep the cost down have been rapidly catching up in college costs…because they can. </p>
<p>The instant the government creates a category of support, it becomes an entitlement and everyone tries to qualify. That brings the costs up way high to the point that it just makes no sense in the scheme of things. So we let the free market decide,with provisions for those who truly do not have the funds to go to college. And private colleges join the effort with aid for those kids that make their admission standards. Everyone else pays as much as the schools can squeeze out of them.</p>
<p>The best system could be one that no family financial support is allowed. Every student supports his/her college education by his/her own credit. How to determine a kid’s credit? Credit card industry may know a thing or two. The idea is that she/he will be capable of paying off the loans quickly and happily shortly after graduation, e.g., within 5 years. Again, no family financial support is allowed at this point either.</p>
<p>I’d like to see colleges take into account the length of time a family has had their income. For example family A has income of 260K but has only been making it for 5 years. Prior to that, income was substantially lower. Family B has income of 260K but has been making it for 20 years. Neither qualifies for aid, but family B should have substantially more savings.</p>
<p>There are a number of interesting and conflicting ideas in this thread. I know I can’t get the posters name right on most of them, so I won’t even try. Ramblings on some of the ideas that caught my eye:</p>
<p>1) ** Financing college (in some fashion) should be an extension of financing high school.** As a society we don’t see any serious equity issues with the fact that the wealthy (and upper middle class) can and sometimes do send their kiddos to (very) expensive and highly academically selective private schools, while (most of) the rest of us are quite content with our free public school system. The parents who choose to spend $$$ on private HS largely do not complain about how much they are expected to pay for their children’s education and do not expect the tax dollars from the rest of us to financially support their decision to send kids to private HS. Moreover, most middle and upper middle class parents don’t feel obligated to spend more $$$ than they can reasonably afford on private high schools.</p>
<p>Extending these ideas to the college level actually is (or was) the basis of the current, albeit far from ideal, federal FA situation: The federal money (Pell grants, Perkins loans, and subsidized and unsubsidized Staffords) ideally should make it possible for even the financially poorest, but academically qualified student to matriculate and finish an undergraduate degree at an appropriate * in-state, public university * where “appropriate” may mean that the student will need to live at home and commute. Of course, this federal money is also available at private colleges as well, but the maximum federal aid doesn’t come close to the COA of most privates. And that’s the rub: Somehow some middle and upper middle class kids and parents who have no problems with the idea of “we can’t afford an expensive, private high school school, so we’ll make do with sending kiddo to a quality public school” do object the idea of telling the kiddo to “pick one of your in-state public colleges since we can’t afford your EFC and hence can’t get enough FA to pay for to you to go to Private Dream College.” Seems to me that changing this cultural expectation might go a long way to addressing some of the perceived problems with federal FA.</p>
<p>2) ** Get the parents’ financial situation out of FA** and ** students should pay for college largely by themselves since they are now adults.** Both these seem completely unreasonable to me for families making well over the 75% of family income in the country. Yes, it’s the parents’ income and they have a right to choose how to spend it and 18 year olds are technically adults, but refusing to acknowledge that there’s some moral obligation to pay at least something towards your own kids’ college educations seems to me to be a version of cutting one’s nose off to spite one’s face. Moreover, unless we as a country are willing to subsidize—through tax dollars—the full cost of a college education at a local directional state university for all academically qualified students, then somebody has to pay for college expenses for the kids enrolled at in-state public U’s. So just who should partially foot the bill instead of the parents?</p>
<p>And unfortunately in many states the COA for four year public schools, while still affordable to the middle and upper middle class families, is more than the total federal and state aid available to students from economically disadvantaged families. In these states I just don’t see how it is financially feasible to expect most students to work their way through college and pay for the full cost. Heck, I’m a professor at a SUNY-University-College–the equivalent of directional state U here in NY and we’re <em>known</em> for our affordable tuition and fees and room and board is not that bad for the small percentage of students who don’t live off-campus and commute. But even so, our moderate and low income students find it difficult to make ends meet: Many work full time, have full Stafford loans, and are full-time college students. Unfortunately working full time and being a full time college student is difficult and academic progress towards degree is what suffers. And that, of course, leads to more time needed to complete the degree, which leads to more loans, which leads to more debt, …</p>
<p>3)Parents unwillingness to pay * should * be taken into account in a fair FA system. It makes me sad every time I see a post from an upper middle kid who says their parents are not willing to contribute anything to their college expenses. Again, I understand, it’s the parents’ money to spend as they see fit. But as others have pointed out, if we could all manage to get FA packages that pay for the full COA at Expensive Dream U by simply telling our kids, “We won’t pay,” then we’d all refuse to pay. In other words, while it’s sad when an upper middle class kid is forced to go to Directional State U because his parents can’t/won’t pay their EFC, it’s not really tragic that the kid can’t go to his/her Expensive Private Dream U.</p>
<p>4)Algorithms used to compute EFC should be changed so that EFC’s are more affordable for the upper middle class I won’t defend the current algorithms. But most of the suggestions on how to change them would lead to * additional complexity* to FAFSA and Profile forms that are already routinely criticized as too complicated.</p>
<p>Moreover, since most colleges do not meet and cannot afford to meet the full financial need for all (or even most) students, changing the EFC numbers is a “feel good fix” that doesn’t actually fix anything. Indeed, if the EFC numbers were suddenly lowered for everybody by changing the algorithm so that the EFC were more correctly computed, would that really change the FA packages given out to * most students * at * most colleges*? I rather doubt it: My guess is that most students at in-state publics receive little or no institutional grant aid, and so their aid packages wouldn’t change at all. Students at privates that promise to meet full need might see their institutional grants go up, or more likely, the number of private colleges promising to meet full need for all students would go down.</p>
<p>I don’t have a solution to these conundrums, but “fixing FA” so that it routinely allows students from families with annual taxable incomes of $150 or $200K+ to attend expensive $50K/year privates by reducing the FAFSA and Profile EFCs seems to require one or both of the following two things:</p>
<p>A) A heck of a lot more federal and/or state grant money, which means increasing federal and state taxes on somebody.</p>
<p>and/or</p>
<p>B) Somehow requiring the $50K privates to spend substantially more of their endowments on FA than they currently do, which seems to be of dubious legality since the privates are private and should be able to spend their endowment money however the heck they want.</p>
<p>One thing also that is sorely lacking in the K-12 system is EDUCATION about the upcoming college financial aid system. Our school has graduating classes of 120-135 aprroximately. Rural MN. As an involved parent while the boys were physically attending school in our system, we were never given any of this financial expectation information. Everyone I know has figured it out as they went along. Solid information would have been good to have. And we don’t know what we don’t know, so how could we ask the “right” questions? </p>
<p>There is a dual credit/PSEO option for juniors and seniors to get college credit while fulfilling their HS graduation requirements. Our recent graduate only did this for a semester, our now-senior is going into his 2nd year of 4.0 GPA at a private liberal arts college and drives daily 30 minutes each way for this opportunity. I’ve been getting phone calls from potential PSEO parents because our school system isn’t giving out information about this program as they want to keep state funds in the school system. </p>
<p>Until I started looking into the college scene in Oct/Nov, I had no idea that parents were EXPECTED to pay a significant portion of college expenses. Because of my personal background (abusive minor years, no family support, foster homes, etc), I had to pay all of my own expenses “somehow”, and that was with grants and loans. Long time loans. I was on bedrest twice, 2 months+ each time, and deferred my student loans. BAD IDEA. That was due to lack of information on my part, although when all my years were “survival mode”, I really don’t blame myself for much of my lack of knowledge. I did the best I could with what I knew while living with a health issue that impacts daily life. Now having to navigate this college system without any support, stumbling upon info online to be researched to find factual info, and now knowing parents have to take on more debt, that is just nuts. </p>
<p>I have no problem, considering my life’s experiences and knowing our sons’ abilities and life values, with our very solid sons potentially taking on $80,000 in loans as they become degreed in civil engineering and mechanical engineering. They think credit cards are poison (good) are very frugal (good) and are hard working, resopnsible members of society already. Our 18yo is working 40-50 hours/week in a civil engineering-related job making $12/hour. He is saving almost all of it and will apply it to college expenses. He thinks (go figure) that he’s responsible to pay for his college. He all but has a job lined up for after college graduation due to the impression he’s made on the business contacts related to this summer job. </p>
<p>Our 16yo is going into senior year in HS, 2nd year at PSEO private college for dual credit, is 3rd in his class where he’s the youngest from skipping kindergarten, and got a 30 on his first ACT test. He has 3 businesses that he’s made money from and is very good at each one. He saves his money, too. </p>
<p>I bring these details about each boy up because they grew up thinking they were responsible for their own college/life choices. So the end result of all of our good parenting and raising responsible, self-reliant boys, is that we are being forced into a financially challenging position with expected parent contibutions. </p>
<p>My in-home childcare business was doing fine, with expected small fluctuations, until the decline in the past 4-6 years. I am taking night classes and will be able to start working toward licensure hours in my field in the spring. I will be closing my $250/week gross receipts business as soon as I can find a full-time job “out in the world”. Times are tough all around, right? </p>
<p>With this expected parental college funding, we are now selling our house IF we can get out from under it with the poor market. The other possibility is to get separated or divorced. All this added stress is truly pushing us over the edge. I’ll have custody of the boys, work whatever jobs I can find after being out of the loop for almost 20 years operating my in-home child car businees and raising our boys. I suppose we could look into banruptcy (irresponsible, not an option), or maybe even legally emancipating our 16year old. Any of these “options” will have significantly negative impacts on the boys. </p>
<p>From my businees experience with county child care subsidy clients, I know that MANY if not MOST welfare recipients have learned to, or not broken the cycle of, sucking the system for all they can. Those are the families that should not be handed more “free money” while our sons aren’t allowed to be responsible for their own college costs. </p>
<p>UGH.</p>
<p>A QUICK “EASY” QUESTION THAT SOMEONE WILL KNOW OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD…
I need to talk to a REAL person in the FA office at U of MN Twin Cities. The general “One Stop” number is staffed by people who may know about “everything” (therefore One Stop) but I have face-to-face been given incorrect information that made our financial aid worse. I need a contact person to talk to as we work through our situation…how do I get to a REAL financial aid person???
Thanks for the info!</p>
<p>–“What changes can be done without costing much or any money?” </p>
<p>It would have to start with parenting, from birth on, and breaking a lot of cycles of welfare abuse.
*<em>Zapping the sense of entitlement.
*</em>Expect more of wefare recipients, those who are perfectly able to WORK…we all know
of some, don’t we? I fully support those who need a short-term leg up or truly need
the assistance.
*<em>Holding our kids accountable for their behavior.
*</em>Teaching financial responsiblity, yes, even when the parents had to figure it all out
themselves, just in time to instill it in their kids (in spite of the parents’ own
learned/unlearned clueless behavior).
*<em>Tossing out politicians and running our country like the “business” that it is.
*</em>Awarding financial aid based on calculated return on investment.
**Mandatory parenting tests…anyone scoring under 80%, mandatory steriliziation
(running to hide for cover). OK, a bit facetious, but wouldn’t that be cool?</p>
<p>Note: I’m hating this LARGE, allegedly wonderful, state university with all of the issues that other government entities have. They should make a committee to look into that… CTLIGO (Committee To Look Into Government Issues). lol</p>