Oberlin is one of the handful of SLACs that does give decent merit, though, so I think they are already working to capture some of the kids that can’t / won’t pay full price for places like Vasser or Haverford (and to compete with places like Michigan).
1 Like
How are defining the S in SLAC? Many selective schools give merit.
Oberlin admit rate isn’t in the same ball park as the two you mentioned - more than double in fact. So no doubt it captures kids who get into more selective or higher ranked schools.
But your point is correct and no different than the kid who goes to name your public instead of UVA OOS or an Ivy or top flight etc.
That’s always happened.
He gets a lot of it covered by the VA. Also, no more Catholic school tuition. He has been living a glorious life traveling the world and staying in luxurious hotels. Now the rest of us get to foot the bill for his kid’s tuition. At least his oldest is a Florida Bright Futures full-ride recipient.
If he gave VA college benefits to the kid, that presumably means that he or his spouse had previously lived a possibly glorious life possibly traveling the world and staying in less luxurious accommodations, with the college benefits coming as part of the job.
However, not saving anything could be a problem for retirement, especially if he now has high spending habits.
At least back then, they were very similar in terms of overall pattern, particularly in the 85th+ range:
Oberlin lagged a bit in the 50th and below range, which I would guess may be because of somewhat less generous need aid. I am not sure what their need distributions looked like back then, but that at least is their reputation in my circles, that they are not quite as generous with need.
My suggested interpretation of all this is that Oberlin back then at least was not so much using merit to try to woo higher income students away from in-state options and such. Rather it was using it to try to compete for desired students against otherwise similar LACs and maybe some private research universities in more popular locations. But Vassar and Haverford, being in those popular locations, did not need to do the same.
Indeed, this source has apparently scraped CDS data to compile some merit information, including the average merit award for undergrads without need:
If you look up Oberlin, it was $21,582, versus a cost of attendance of $87,404. So that is netting out to about $66K on average.
That is quite a bit more than full pay in-state costs of attendance, even in relatively high cases like you can find in California, Virginia, and so on. But obviously it is less than a typical full pay private cost.
And if you poke around that chart, there are a lot of LACs and private research universities in a similar sort of range for average merit without need.
1 Like
He’s got a big retirement (city) coming soon (453b lump & paid monthly) that shouldn’t impact financial aid eligibility, and his VA disability benefits are linked to Persian Gulf I. He was pre 9/11 GI Bill. VA payments increase with two kids in college.
To end my rant, it is very frustrating that people who make $150-$200k and have been saving at 30%+ for two decades get penalized, while others making the same income and saving little or nothing get up to half off at private colleges.
2 Likes
The vast majority of colleges don’t care how much you have in assets- and therefore, nobody gets penalized.
They don’t care because they don’t meet need. They accept you, how you pay for it is up to you. I know plenty of people who bought the line “better to spend it because then you’ll get more financial aid” and ended up $%^& with that strategy. Unless your kid is accepted to West Point or one of the other academies (free, but of course strings attached) there are NO guarantees that your kid will be accepted into the mega generous but tiny admission rate colleges which will even ask about assets.
The kids I know with the “spend it now, financial aid will bail us out” strategy all ended up commuting to the local, non-flagship state U. Even the flagship (a significantly better institution) was unaffordable once they factored in room and board. The kids end up majoring in accounting and elementary Ed- the two strong programs at the local state U. Forget engineering (they don’t have it) and forget about 20 humanities disciplines.
Presumably, you wanted more choices for your kids, right? So don’t get frustrated that due to your savings- your kid WILL have choices. The penalty isn’t much of a penalty if it buys your kid the ability to study what they want, right?
10 Likes
The part that is the biggest bummer to me is how many kids in this “hole” - even if we debate how many kids it affects - get pretty much screwed. E.g. a friend’s kid is national debater, lead in theatre, student body officer, tons of community service, 4.0 student, I.B. diploma, high test scores, etc. etc. but parents make $300k and they have some savings. So despite doing everything right to get into a school of their dreams, like Georgetown, Tufts, or Dartmouth, they aren’t even applying to most T50 schools, because they can’t afford $95K a year and won’t get aid. Same situation with my kid, who isn’t quite as impressive on paper, but close. She only applied to two schools with acceptance rates below 30%, despite working her butt off to position herself well to get into highly selective schools.
“get pretty much screwed”
But parents who make 300K with a kid this accomplished can afford every merit scholarship college in the country. We aren’t talking about someone who will end up folding sweaters for the rest of his life at Old Navy, are we? And what does “some assets” mean- equity in a home? Retirement savings (which won’t be tapped)?
Where does it end- need based aid for folks making 300K, why not 350K? Why not 400K? What is your definition of screwed exactly?
8 Likes
Have a hard time seeing how a $300k income would not allow savings and investment that would result in easily being able to pay list price at expensive colleges.
1 Like
Screwed is a strong word, but it does feel that way when you are experiencing it up close.
I 100% understand that people in this group still have more options than many, so it is a “first world problem” rant for suer. But by “screwed” I mean not being able to apply to an entire category of schools that would be a very good fit because the pricing model makes those schools cost a significantly higher percentage of the families annual income and savings than it is for people who make either less or more.
If you make $300K a year, unless you’re living way outside normal means, you can figure a way.
But they are not screwed.
Their kid will get an education.
I dream of the Ritz Carlton but stay at the Courtyard.
If they can’t or don’t want to afford what someone charges, you choose differently.
College is no different than a car or house or whatever in that regard.
Some want to drive a Porsche but drive a Hyundai instead.
Some want Five Guys but go to Mickey Ds instead.
I don’t think they’re screwed at all.
And they’ll have every opportunity to get just as good an education - just because you have a well known name does not mean the education is any better or even as good.
It’s all perspective.
And if they make $300K a year and want to spend $95K, I’m sure they can cut back and figure out a way.
College is a consumer product - pricing goes from the bare bones to the extreme.
No one is screwed.
Now, some have to pay more for the same product than others - in that sense, ok. But would you rather your family make $300K or $50K? I’ll take $300K every time!!!
btw - there are less expensive Tufts, Dartmouths, and Georgetowns - and when you say they can’t apply to that class of school, I’m not sure those three are even similar on an overall basis.
3 Likes
This is precisely why the public schools down south are booming. Even full-price at most of the publics are < $50k, yes some in the $50s, and UC schools, UVA and Michigan the highest.
3 Likes
If the family with $300k income feels envious of the poor family’s access to college financial aid, then they have a simple way to remedy that situation: quit the high paying job(s), take low paying jobs, and give away assets to their favorite charities. Do this early enough so that they will be poor for the prior prior year on FAFSA and CSS Profile.
5 Likes
This isn’t about “feeling envious about those who make less.” I think that is an easy way to sweep the issue away and ignore the premise of the statement. No one is saying people in the donut hole would wish to be poor, just that they feel bad that their income means their kid can’t go to college where they want. It is a fair thing to feel bad about without making it about “envy” over poverty.
If you make $300k in W2 salary, after all federal and state taxes you take home about $189,000. You would then pay about $36,000 a year in mortgage. Leaving $153,000, another $20k a year for food for a family of four leaves about $133,000. Let’s assume you have no other costs at all, no gas, no healthcare, etc. paying $95k would be extremely difficult and impossible if you have more than one kid. (Savings would help out of course, but savings rates can vary a lot, and if you are making $300K you don’t qualify for any aid at the vast majority of colleges, even if you don’t have a bunch of savings).
But yes, I fully acknowledge that this applies to many many categories of families - i.e. there are a lot of people who can’t afford to send their high stats amazing kids to the college of their choice. And I think it sucks for them too! I think it is ok to acknowledge, and vent on here, that the existing system “screws” kids in the parent income hole and also screws over kids at other income brackets.
I totally agree that prestige does not equal success or outcomes - I am a huge proponent of that argument in fact and make it on these boards very frequently. I think paying a lot for a name-brand well-known college is rarely a good idea.
That said, I do still think it can also be true that it is a bummer for kids who do everything right, but pay a higher percentage of their family income for school (note - of course it makes sense to pay more if you have more, but it is also a different percentage calculation for those in the “hole” as defined in this thread).
2 Likes
Just interjecting to add, in your hypothetical you are assuming no savings. I think we can agree that cashflowing $90,000 would be tough.
2 Likes
Agreed, savings can make a big difference (and I edited to add a bit about that above). It is important to note though, that at most schools once you cross a certain income threshold they won’t give you aid even if you don’t have savings or have insufficient savings.
I’m having trouble with your logic- and with your math.
The family you’ve presented has made choices (like we all have). I’m going to guess that they bought whatever house the realtor told them they could afford-- which is a choice. Nobody mandates that you have to be saddled with a mortgage that doesn’t allow you to meaningfully save money-- whether for college or anything else. And they are now making the choice NOT to borrow against that house- again, a choice. Colleges assume three payment vehicles- the past (those pesky savings-- 529 plans are NOT new), the present (cash flow), the future (borrowing). Families make tradeoffs like this all the time- buy the used Honda and pay cash, or buy the new Acura and borrow. Take a modest vacation by driving to a state park and renting a cabin for a few days, or charge up the credit cards and fly to Disney for the “no holds barred” experience.
You do realize that there are families who are full pay on a lot less, right? And that the mega generous schools educate a tiny percentage of college kids in America. What happens to everyone else if they end up in a college without generous need based aid at their income level? They work, they borrow, the parents go without.
The scenario of “we want to preserve our 300K lifestyle without changing a thing so our kid can go to Dartmouth” isn’t likely to be a persuasive policy argument when there are families living on a shoestring so the kid can pay for Baruch or CCNY and commute on the subway…
Still trying to understand who gets screwed here. The kid who ends up at a college which doesn’t care about your assets- because they don’t have aid to give?
6 Likes
If they earn a lot less, then they likely receive some kind of need-based aid.
But, I totally understand your argument, and it is fine to make. My counterargument is a simple one, and I don’t think it is that controversial - as a percentage of income and assets, people in the “regular wealthy” category often (not always) end up being required to pay a greater percentage of their income for the same college than people in other income brackets. And it is a bummer.
It is also a heavily discussed reality on this board and elsewhere, so certainly is not a completely out of left-field idea.
Yes, people make all kinds of things work, and some choose to pay full price anyway, etc. etc. But that doesn’t change the reality. And the reality is that a large percentage of families in that group (“regular wealthy”) are making the decision to send their kids to the lower tier of merit-giving schools. Therefore the premise of my first post in this thread - will schools start to shift their financial aid approach to try to get this category of student/family to stay at T50 schools?
A decade ago when my son and his classmates were applying to college this was an issue as well. The go to schools for these families were UChicago, WUSTL and similar.