<p>
</p>
<p>Soaked? Wanna trade places with people making less than $40k a year? Then you’ll be home and dry, right?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s what merit aid is for. It is about priorities. We are willing to pay a lot for our D’s education - but I’m not sure that it is worth it, won’t know for 20 years. Other families may make different decisions. We will probably make a different decision with our son.</p>
<p>What is sad is the upper middle class or middle class family that encourages their child to go through the entire process saying don’t worry, money will work out, then when that Princeton acceptance comes in with big loans because the family income is $150,000, saying gee, Jr, just don’t think we can do it.
The flip side sad thing is the college going after non-custodial parents - I think there are probably about equal numbers of families trying to beat the system and families that truly don’t ever hear from the other parent, regardless of the income. I suppose the issue is that if the school made it easy to not claim the non-custodial parent, everyone would “try to beat the system”.</p>
<p>Yeah, the upper middle class gets “soaked”, the poor remain poor, and the middle class doesn’t get in. What’s wrong with this picture? Could it just be that they are chasing the wrong product? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>(“then when that Princeton acceptance comes in with big loans because the family income is $150,000,…” No loans come with the Princeton acceptance of the $150k student - that’s the whole point, to try to prevent him from going elsewhere. It’s just another form of merit aid masquerading as needbased, much as Harvard’s policy of no-cost to sub-$40k students, regardless of their EFC - not a bad idea in my judgment.)</p>
<p>cangel,
I can see encouraging your child to apply to expensive schools with a wait-and-see attitude, but I don’t imagine most upper middle class families tell the kid that money will be no problem on the front end. These are working families that don’t have lots of ready cash lying around!</p>
<p>Let’s not forget that upper-middle class begins around the $125,000 range. With a two-earner, two-car family, this scoops up many hard-working non-wealthy families who are already over-taxed. When the EFC is in the $25K-30K range it puts non-merit colleges out of reach for these families.</p>
<p>mini-
please clarify </p>
<p>“No loans come with the Princeton acceptance of the $150k student - that’s the whole point, to try to prevent him from going elsewhere.”</p>
<p>Are you saying the $150k kid gets nothing or gets merit aid?</p>
<p>Let’s not forget that upper-middle class begins around the $125,000 range." </p>
<p>Not to get picky, but the upper quintile begins at $92k; $125 would put one in the top 10% of all Americans. Hardly close to anything resembling middle (which is roughly $52k.)</p>
<p>But putting that aside, why is it a “problem”, even if it is true) that non-merit-aid colleges are out of reach for this tiny segment (7% from $125k to $160k) of American families? I mean, there’s lots of things in the world I can’t buy. I learn to live happily within my means. I make rational decisions about the use of resources like everyone else, and I get on with life. Does anyone really think that the quality of undergraduate education at H. (not meant to be a whipping boy - their financial policies are terrific, but their own students rank them 26th in academic quality/quality of life) is so substantially better than than at Emory? I mean I think both places are really wonderful, and offer a great education, and if one has the opportunity to afford the more luxurious good, there is a choice, and, if not, a great education is waiting in any case. So what exactly is the problem?</p>
<p>To answer the question above: Princeton has eliminated ALL loans. The loan portion that would have been offered to someone with a $150k income at another school is, at Princeton, turned into a grant, despite the standard policy at other “no merit aid” schools that, after the EFC is taken into account, a package is made up of scholarships, loans, and workstudy. This “merit aid” is an incentive to keep these students from accepting larger offers elsewhere. And at Princeton, NO $125 family pays the full tab. In fact, of the 1157 Princeton students receiving financial aid (NO LOANS), 443 (38%) had incomes of $125k and an above (about double those at below $40k), and 148 (12.8%) had incomes above $200k.</p>
<p>marite-how much would a $40k school expect a $40K family to pay? Not much I suspect.</p>
<p>If you’ve got an above average, but not stellar kid, and you’re a $125K family, your out of luck. The same kid with a $40K family has a low EFC and gets aid, right? So, the $125k family pays the full tab. They’re used to it!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the one hand, Mini likes to blurry the concepts of merit- and need-based financial. It’s one of his agenda items. </p>
<p>Onthe other hand, here how it may work in real life:</p>
<p>Case 1: Brilliant Rickoids has a family income of 39,000 and an EFC of $2500. His first choices are MIT and Harvard. </p>
<p>A. If he applies to MIT, the student will look at a financial package that follows the Consensus Approach (568 Group) and look at having to pay his EFC of $2500 and probably a minimum added contribution of $5500 -for which he will receive a gracious offer to borrow the amount or work for a part of it. The difference of $8,000 is substantial enough for the student to give the nod to H. </p>
<p>B. If he applies to Harvard, and if H does indeed eliminate the EFC and offers 100% grants and no debts, the student is looking at a free ride. </p>
<p>Case 2: A URM with 1300 SAT with an income of 39,000 and an EFC of 2500 applies to Harvard, Smith, and Mt Holyoke. </p>
<p>Even if Smith and MHC are able to meet 100% of the needs, the student will still gace her EFC contribution of 2500. The school now can throw in one of their scholarships (Stride/Zolmann at Smith for instance) and offer a 100% package that includes merit and financial aid. As long as they do not exceed the COA, they should be fine with federal funds. Obviously, the Mother Teresa schools still will use considerable debt packages, but at least the package will be a total package. </p>
<p>The second example illustrates why the line between merit and need based aid is blurried by comparisons between colleges. It also illustrates that Harvard, not being a member of the 569 group, can use a disguised merit aid to “buy” students, despite being an Ivy League school. Obviously, it also illustrates the Harvard can now match the poaching tactics of lesser ranked schools that were able to use merit aid to entice students.</p>
<p>Do you think I disagree? My whole point was that the new policies at H. and, especially at P. (which are essentially forms of merit aid), were designed to deal with their current or future “poaching” problems.</p>
<p>mini-
IMO, the problem is in the calculation of the EFC. It is unrealistic.</p>
<p>I happen to agree with you that the quality of the undergrad educational experience at H vs. many other schools is probably inferior.</p>
<p>“marite-how much would a $40k school expect a $40K family to pay? Not much I suspect.”</p>
<p>Well, at most of the schools in the country, the answer is A LOT more than people think. </p>
<p>First, there is the EFC and its different methodologies. A zero FM EFC might very well become an EFC of $5,000 to $10,000 when using the IM or CA. </p>
<p>Then, there is the gapping issue, which can be considerable at school that do not meet 100% of need. </p>
<p>Just look at my example between Harvard and MIT. I estimate that a student with a $40,000 family income would be hard-pressed to graduate with a contribution smaller than $30,000 over the 4 years, and this with a minimal EFC and a school known to be generous.</p>
<p>"Do you think I disagree? "</p>
<p>I should have added a line that said that my examples meant to SUPPORT your point. You are way too used to see me disagree with you. :)</p>
<p>xiggi–</p>
<p>“Just look at my example between Harvard and MIT. I estimate that a student with a $40,000 family income would be hard-pressed to graduate with a contribution smaller than $30,000 over the 4 years, and this with a minimal EFC and a school known to be generous.”</p>
<p>ok, so the $40K family must contribute $30K over the four years. The $125K family with an EFC of $30K must contribute $120K.</p>
<p>So the $125K family has to pay for all of their education and the $40K family has to pay for some. Why shouldn’t they? If they don’t want to pay $30K then they can send the kid to a state school. Isn’t that why state schools exist?</p>
<p>A lot of $125K families wind up sending their kids to state schools because they can’t afford $40K per year.</p>
<p>Harvard expects a $40k family to pay nothing. But, talking as someone who is paying TWO $40k packages (using loans), I would not trade my upper middle class lifestyle with that of a $40k family. I do not feel in the least “soaked.” I feel I am paying what I am able to afford and what many other families cannot. If I did not want to pay the two full fares, I would have directed my kids to cheaper schools. It’s my choice. There won’t be any whining from me about the plight of the upper middle class.</p>
<p>mini-
WOW, that upper-middle range kicks in way earlier than I surmised. Kind of an early Christmas present to discover that I’m rich! :)</p>
<p>marite,
I wouldn’t trade my lifestyle for that of a 40K family either. I worked myself out of it and don’t care to go back.</p>
<p>We have many $40k families where I live who choose to have one earner at $40k when they could have two and be an $80k family. They qualify for free health and dental care.</p>
<p>That said, there are certainly many two earner families making a combined $40k or less.</p>
<p>Both families get lots of free aid in my state regardless of how many in the family work.</p>
<p>I’ve departed education issues for social ones, but there’s overlap when tax dollars are involved.</p>
<p>Tax dollars? I thought we were talking about private colleges where the rich get “soaked?” Are there public universities charging $40k?</p>
<p>Tax dollars fund state and federal grants.
Maybe you are the only one talking about private colleges and the rich getting soaked.</p>
<p>Baseballmom - at my daughter’s private school filled with families making between $80K and $150K - as well as some more wealthy and some poorer - the GC told us that it was quite rare to have a family where the kid had the grades/scores and the parents had the commitment to go to an expensive private college, no matter what. The last 2 vals prior to her class were each accepted at highly prestigious schools that they turned down because the parents had expected scholarships that didn’t really exist - Harvard doesn’t give scholarships. It happens more than you might guess, and is a disservice to the child whose energies could have been devoted from the beginning to schools that are more financially realistic.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with taking a wait and see what the spring brings approach, if the parents have made it reasonably clear about how much they can pay - parent and child are then partners in the financial implications of selecting a school. Wait and see works well if the child applies to many schools, or has a safety that they are very happy with, or doesn’t have too many specific wants/needs. What I see among some of my acquaintances is “Well we might pay for HYPS, how much could it be?!” and “So and so got a scholarship to Harvard, I’m sure Little Bill will too” without a clue as to reality.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree that the system penalizes people who are in that $80 to $150K range - it is harder for them to go to HYPS, both financially and because there are many, many more of them applying - but, life ain’t fair. The lifestyle will have to curbed to afford it, either for 20 years while the kids are growing or for 20 years after paying off the loans. Other choices can be made, it is a trade-off for each family to balance - just be upfront wiht the kid about it.</p>
<p>And by the way, (here I am the Republican, making this argument) don’t forget that a much higher percentage of that $40K family’s income has to go to the basic necessities of life - food, clothes, shelter - than does the $125K family’s income. That’s the difference, it is just as hard or harder for the $40K family to come up with $30K over 4 years as it is for the $125 family to fork over $120K.</p>
<p>“So the $125K family has to pay for all of their education and the $40K family has to pay for some. Why shouldn’t they? If they don’t want to pay $30K then they can send the kid to a state school. Isn’t that why state schools exist?”</p>
<p>Baseballmom, I cannot rewrite the laws that regulate the financial aid in this country. I cannot, however, state with certainty that everyone believes the grass to be greener for … others. There is no escape to the fact that the biggest issue in higher education and K-12 is funding. This issue shows its head mostly at the college level, because that is when a great number of families face -for the first time- a situation where they become responsible for the full payment up to THEIR ability to pay. Before that, the situation tended to a lot less clear, especially for families with children in public school. It is also the first time that a determination of your ability to pay is established on your income and assets, and not on your spending patterns. </p>
<p>It is undeniable that the middle and upper-middle class, especially homeowners in the majority of states, have and are expected to pay a larger portion of the cost of attending school. The rule is that the have-more and earn-more will pay more. As a consolation, very few will ever pay the full value of what their education will cost. The full tuition at private schools represents a fraction of the cost of providing the education. At public schools, the funding by families attending the school is also much higher than what they contributed in taxes. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the situation of the middle class has not deteriorated for the sole benefit of the less fortunate. The erosion of education “buying power” has been felt as hard among the families that rely on Pell grants. The number of students who could attend school through the exclusive use of federal funding has decreased substantially in the past decades.</p>
<p>The conclusion is that, except for the super wealthy, attending college will represent sacrifices. The difference is that the poorest cannot afford much in additional sacrifices. However, the smaller size of the sacrifices does not make it any easier.</p>