About 5% of asset value per year, and that doesn’t include retirement savings…no?
I love when people complain that their savings are hurting them.
OH is right. Savings are assessed at up to 5.6% and that is AFTER a protected amount based on the age of the oldest parent.
It’s your income that drives EFC. No one is being “punished.” You will ALWAYS been in a better position if you’ve saved than if you haven’t.
Wahhhh, I’m expected to use part of my savings to pay for my kid’s education. The horror!
http://www.thecollegesolution.com/an-angry-mom-rails-against-elite-colleges/
I gotta say, I would much rather have this scenario where the household has to pay maybe 1/6th of their income at most.
My mom is probably going to spend about 15-25% more or less on school(after taxes).
Who wouldn’t want to be able to afford college, if you can afford U of Chicago then that’s awesome considering anyone under 200k gets financial aid.
“I think it would be better if the colleges charged on a sliding scale, dependent on your income. Then it would be fair for everyone.”
This is exactly how the ultra wealthy, ultra elite schools do it. As noted above, NYC Mayor Bill Deblasio’s kid gets financial aid at Yale. At $65k income level, Yale asks families to pay 1% of annual income. At $200k income, you pay 20% of annual income.
Schools with less money and less brand than Yale, unfortunately, can’t play that game.
For the $250k income family, the best play is to pick a merit school where your kid is above average. Not ideal (sorry about Yale). But way better than being a poor kid without the extreme academics necessary to access HYPS type schools. For those kids, a net price of even $10k a year is not do-able.
@romanigypsyeyes It would really depend on the length of your mortgage. $900 for a 15 year seems pretty low for a medium-large city. $900 for a 30 year would be different.
@romanigypsyeyes I’m so glad I could entertain you. Actually, I was not whining about having to pay for my kid. I was stating that the full tuition that these colleges are charging is too much for middle class people. Sorry if you don’t agree, but you don’t need to be snarky.
@megan12, If you’re full pay, the likelihood is that you’re upper, not middle, income. Why should “extremely bright” upper or middle income kids have to take top tier schools off their list? For the same reason most incredibly bright low income kids don’t have them on theirs: affordability. Going away to college is a luxury. If you can afford to send your kids away to school but can’t pay what some colleges are asking, choose other schools.
“full tuition that these colleges are charging is too much for middle class people” - True. And that’s where you can get into debates of middle class (who do get at least some FA) and upper middle class (who may not, even though some woould need it to afford sticker price).
@megan12 -Don’t you know that if you don’t like something that’s popular on CC you’re whining?
Last time I checked, I was not upper class - not even close. We just have money saved in various accounts and investments. But thanks for the vote of confidence. That means that the poor kid who will get funding (which I’m not complaining about at all) may be more likely to be able to afford the top school.
@Megan12, When you say middle income families are increasingly becoming shut out of top schools due to costs but the rich can pay and the poor get aid, you’re missing the fact that most low income students don’t get enough aid to make those schools affordable.
The only funding low income kids are guaranteed are the ~$5k/year Pell grant and the ~$5500/year federal student loan. The vast majority of them won’t get enough merit aid or need based grants to be able to afford to go away to any school and, unlike middle and upper income families, they don’t have savings and other investments to help cover the gap. I don’t disagree that it’s becoming more difficult for middle income families to afford expensive schools; I just disagree that those schools are any more affordable for the majority of low income families.
That’s kind of rude. “doesn’t sound like the type of person to have a full ride scholarship” Just because someone doesn’t look smart or have a smart voice doesn’t mean they’re not.
Perhaps only a handful of schools, but not the vast majority of them. And that’s because not too many meet full financial need, which the poor kid needs to attend.
@OHMomof2 Northwestern’s merit aid is for athletes.
Well then, the system sucks for the poor kids too! 
The system is designed to suck as much money as possible from students pockets. The people who benefit from the current system are the college administrators that feed off of obscenely high tuition and large endowments with cushy jobs and little accountability.
The tenured academics don’t do too poorly, either. (The ultimate cush job is Law school Prof…)
Yes, and the non-tenured academics do quite poorly.
One could certainly argue that the full ride type of scholarships to the state flagships are really unfair for all of the decent to good in-state students and their families. If you aren’t one of the lucky recipients, you end up paying a premium to send your kiddo to the in-state school, just so the valedictorian and a couple of classmates across town can go for free. Not unusual that those families are more than capable of paying the full freight, not always but often much more capable than the average Joe.
You don’t see too many threads denouncing this inequity, even though the recipients are often the same middle to upper middle kids/parents who feel shut out of the elites because of affordability.