<p>
</p>
<p>I believe it was indeed the OP who said that while it’s certainly possible to succeed in life after attending a “mediocre” school, it is not “probable.”</p>
<p>I agree that parents who shouldn’t borrow money, shouldn’t borrow it. Is that all people are saying?</p>
<p>Hunt, I think it makes a difference where your state flagship is. If it’s in Charlottesville or Berkeley or Ann Arbor, that $60K might be a tougher call. If it’s in Missoula, in my opinion it’s a no-brainer. Which is not to say that a person can’t succeed in life as a U of M grad. (no, not that “M” - the other “M”. No, the other, other “M.” I mean…) But chances are the kid will go further in life if he goes further to college in your scenario, and that $60K would be well spent, IMHO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t make the “coastal thing” comment.</p>
<p>Maybe you do win the contest on how many people you know. Yay you! I’m glad to say that I don’t know anyone “living large” at the expense of their kids. Do I know people who cannot afford to send their kids to their desired schools? Yes, I do. But it’s definitely not a “not my problem” sensibility. </p>
<p>Any time these conversations come up, it always gets turned around to “so you think people who send their kids to expensive ‘top’ schools are idiots?” :rolleyes: It is perfectly fine to send kids to tops schools. If my D had wanted to apply to HYP and had been accepted and wanted to go, we were prepared to send her there happily. However, that wasn’t the premise of the OP. The OP states categorically that one MUST do this, even at very large amounts of debt if one “loves their children.” One MUST “give til it hurts.” Other comments along the same lines follow. Not borrowing into one’s 70’s or 80’s is being “selfish,” “taking care of you at the expense of them,” “pampering oneself” to deprive the kiddos a future, etc., and other such nonsense. If one cannot afford to send a kid to an expensive “top school” without borrowing large amounts well into their 70s and 80s, it is not “selfish” to make a choice to send the kid to the school one can afford, given that there are so many really good cheaper alternatives for people who don’t have the funds for the “top 30.” They may not be “as good,” as defined by ??? But they are probably “good enough” to provide those kids with the potential to go on and achieve “success.” It is arrogance to suggest that there are only 30 schools worthy of consideration and that parents who make other choices are selfish.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the family can do that belt-tightening without putting themselves in financial jeopardy, then, sure. But I think the point is there are families for whom there are no more notches on the belt to tighten – who are already driving beater cars into the ground and foregoing all but absolutely critical repairs, who are already taking modest vacations (camping or grandma’s), who are already eating out very infrequently. </p>
<p>I would tighten my belt quite a lot to be able to afford elite schools, but that’s easy to say when I have a safety net of a household with two educated (without loans) parents with professional careers, no health issues (knock on wood), no elderly relatives to support at this point, and I HAVE a fully paid for house, 2 cars in good condition, etc. What I would do from my upper middle class perch to tighten my belt is far different from what I would expect our $55K Maine lobsterman to be able to do. I HAVE fat in my budget that I could trim if needed, by not upgrading my electronics, cutting my cable bill, not going out to eat, driving instead of flying on vacation, blah blah blah. Collegehelp seems unaware that there are people who are ALREADY living close to the bone, and there isn’t much to cut.</p>
<p>Same to you, moneymom!</p>
<p>Imo, thread is still getting distracted by those who shift to hypothetical parents who could afford an expensive school, if they just prioritized it, didn’t live a cushy life, didn’t (sorry, Blossom,) borrow to paint the deck. And how wonderful it is that some posters could somehow manage the costs or save by planning or even scrimping. Or borrowing some manageable amount they can afford to pay back and still keep their heads above water.</p>
<p>Well, kudos, but that distracts from the question about families that don’t have it, to begin with. YOU are proud of what you did for them, but that’s all it is. You didn’t “rob Peter to pay Paul”, you cut back, made your budget make sense to the whole family, still could afford an emergency or something else you felt was necessary.</p>
<p>It’s a bootstrapper thing to harrumph, “I did it, these were my values, this is what I chose and made possible, why can’t they?” Think about it.</p>
<p>Paborn, I work for a “School X” and trust me, we’re inundated by apps in droves from all over the country. And most of the kids clearly have a little sparkle in their eye about the status of this school. (I say that because so many can’t articulate their interest, name a program or opportunity here.) It’s not just a NE thing.</p>
<p>Thank you, Paborn, for helping me to see that I am not upper middle class. I guess I’m just middle class. My house is not paid for, probably because I paid close to 200K for private school for my kids. Still, I was able to make that choice and many cannot. I think that the “prestige” status thing may not just be coastal but school related. My kids attended one of four (major) private high schools in our town, and I would say that two of them cater to very high income families and also put more emphasis on prestige schools. The other two schools have a few who go to top 30 schools and a lot who get scholarships to flagships and folks are proud to send their kids to good to excellent state universities.</p>
<p>Like button for Paburn for articulating something I was trying to say.</p>
<p>Nope, too simplistic to make it a North vs. South thing where the Southerners are virtuous and the Northerners are prestige obsessed.</p>
<p>I’ve lived in the South, and there are communities there where people live or die by what country club you belong to, where your “people” are from, and even which second rate private school you are sending your kids to in order to avoid the local, often better, but usually more diverse option. The fact that they don’t avidly parse US News to see where Amherst v. Williams is going to end up this year doesn’t make them NOT STATUS OBSESSED. It just means that they aren’t interested in having their kids shlep to Massachusetts to live in a rural area where it’s always snowing (in their view) and where nobody thinks that living in a gated community is a big deal.</p>
<p>If you’ve seen how some New England patricians live and vacation- it doesn’t make sense to the rest of the country. So why encourage your kid to go live among them (even though that lifestyle and those values and those people are mostly a cultural relic- even in the part of the country that spawned that old money gestalt.) </p>
<p>The fact that someone in the South might not consider Amherst prestigious doesn’t mean that they don’t care about prestige.</p>
<p>Lookingforward- but the kid talented enough to be admitted to Princeton (whether or not the parents can afford it, or should borrow for it, or whatever) is the kid who is likely to have many more affordable options, even if the flagship public is in the bottom quartile of the 50 states. So what is your argument- that a kid who gets into Princeton or U bottom fishing State U should blame the parents for not being able to cut back on vacations enough to afford Princeton? Or that he/she should have applied to a wide range of colleges, many of which would have been cheaper than Princeton and possibly cheaper than his/her own state flagship?</p>
<p>North vs South :)</p>
<p>Grew up in the south, raised kids in the north, retired to the south.</p>
<p>Yes - “the south” cares about prestige. If you are talking about old southern families. Lots of southerners these days are from “up north” I don’t know how much overlap there is in what is considered prestigious. I am going to think about that question.</p>
<p>For some southern families it makes absolutely no sense to send a child “up north” to college. They might marry someone from out of state and never come back home. In their minds “best fit” is frequently the state flagship, without regard to money saved over the prestigious out-of-state private. </p>
<p>Our local attorney attended the state flagship and an in-state law school whose name I had never before heard. His son, state flagship grad, just graduated from the same law school and joined the practice. Son is at least third generation in this practice. Family is upper upper middle class. I sincerely doubt this young man applied out of state for college. </p>
<p>Many of my southern cousins never considered applying out of state for college. Since their kids would never apply to Princeton, they can’t answer Hunt’s question. </p>
<p>If you think your kid’s best fit is your state flagship (and they have the stats), I doubt you are reading this board.</p>
<p>My cousins are probably on some greekchat board. A whole lot of energy is expended on positioning for the “best” sorority/fraternity. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, good for you. If you have high income, you will probably have a college fund for your kids that will pay for any college they can get admitted to, with money left over for medical or other professional school if they choose that route and get admitted to that. If you do not have high income, you will probably laugh at how little the expected family contributions will be when you run financial aid estimates in net price calculators. That would be in addition to likely having more than enough retirement savings to support your frugal lifestyle in retirement. So it is unlikely that you will need a parent loan for your kids’ college (although there could be situations where you may choose to get one for liquidity management reasons), and it is unlikely that you will be choosing between your retirement funds and your kids’ college.</p>
<p>But just because you find it natural to live frugally does not mean that the overspenders will find it easy to suddenly convert to frugality when their kid starts applying to colleges. Since they are probably among the two thirds of credit card users who normally have balances on their credit cards (as opposed to paying the full bill within the grace period), it is likely that they are maxed out on their debt capacity anyway and would not qualify for the parent loan that you are suggesting that they take.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well put. I think many people elsewhere would be shocked to find the great gobs of money that one could find at, for example, an Ole Miss. Because they seem to think (at least on CC) that the only money one might have was made on Wall Street / in Manhattan, or potentially in Silicon Valley. It just ain’t so, and they betray their own naivete in thinking so.</p>
<p>
And I don’t think anyone said that in this thread. I can think of many scenarios in which I would take out a loan. I just can’t think of any scenario in which I would take out a loan of the type and size you posited.</p>
<p>It is a sophomoric argument to set up a straw man that is patently absurd, and then say, “So you can’t think of a scenario?”</p>
<p>
[quote=kluge]
The gravamen of the OP’s position is that our kids will benefit if we sacrifice some of our own financial security to get the money together to allow them to attend a more academically prestigious college than they could at a lower cost alternative.<a href=“emphasis%20added”>/quote</a></p>
<p>I agree with your statement, kluge, and believe that everyone on this thread believes that we should sacrifice “some” of our own financial security for our children. What we are discussing here is how much is “some”, and that varies from family to family.</p>
<p>(I’m in the Northeast, by the way, and our flagship was not a “fit” for our daughter. She went to a private university because we do believe that it improved her chances for future success. So I’m not in the “don’t scrimp” camp.)</p>
<p>Every time we are asked to raise our property taxes for whatever reason (schools, playgrounds, roads), we’re always told, “It will only raise your taxes by the amount of your morning cup of coffee. No big deal!” What the proponents don’t consider is that I gave up my morning cup of coffee six tax increases ago.</p>
<h1>675 I am not sure that in the south or in the north that great gobs of money necessarily equals prestige. There are many reasons to value a state flagship that have nothing to do with potential incomes of graduates. ditto the “prestigious” privates.</h1>
<p>Agree fully, alh - just giving an example.</p>
<p>zoosermom -</p>
<p>Lots of attorneys don’t make tons of money, and the partnership opportunities often consist of various provisions. Some are able to purchase a portion of a partnership and then get paid when there is money to distribute. Some get a salary plus a percentage of profits. Some get only a percentage of profits. Some get a percentage of what they produce. I know a lot of lawyers and I would expect that very few, if any, got any kind of provision for their kids in their partnership agreement. Also, the salary range of lawyers varies wildly, from as low as the 40,000s. Some lawyers are well in the middle class, not upper middle class. Law firms fall on hard times just like all other areas. There have been law suits against some of the law schools asserting that they misled matriculating students regarding employment rates and expectations for salaries.</p>
<p>moneymom, I’ve worked in law firm hiring for almost 30 years. Believe me, I know. Which is why I made it clear that I was referrig to people whom I know personally. You also misread what I wrote. I didn’t say that partnership agreements contained provisions for kids. I said that the new partners made educational trusts for their kids as part of structuring their compensation and financial arrangements at the time of partnership. I stand by that because, well, it is the truth. Large firms often provide comprehensive financial management assistance to their new partners because partnership is such a complicated process.</p>
<p>And for anyone in a partnership where you don’t always control when your income arrives (e.g. it’s not just you and three other people… but a huge firm) the educational trusts are a vehicle for putting away as much tax deferred income as possible in good years without tying your hands during the lean years.</p>
<p>
That was always my understanding. It is interesting now that, as moneymom said, the lean years are here I am seeing old friends whose kids are at or near college age who are beyond grateful for those trusts. Particularly those who have either been de-equitized or have moved on.</p>