Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it's much more representative of the average american household. as i posted before, MN's example is the top 5% of the population
moreover, let's consider what happens to this student who can get accepted to harvard but is in the rare position of having too much money for aid but not enough to attend. then they go to a top public school (nudge nudge), continue to have all of the advantages (parents buy them a car, less pressure to work during/immediately after college, etc) that such students often have. what exactly is the problem?
Yea, that's mostly true. Average household is about 50K. I definitely think that lower and middle income households should have the advantage.
I was simply addressing the point that anybody can go to a top private. My parents saved for me and my sister since before we were born and were ridiculously frugal. We had our choice of any school in the country and picked accordingly (perhaps unwisely ). But most parents don't do that.
I do think that anybody who is in the top 80% of household income (~100K) should be able to pay for their kids' college in its entirety, albeit it may be the state flagship.
It'll take some penny pinchin' but I definitely agree with your points.
did you or a family member of yours get in and have to go elsewhere due to cost?
i don't need to "rest assured", i'm quite familiar with the dynamic. it took a while to get used to how much more money nearly everyone else had at college than me, but it was certainly worth it
i'm sorry if it doesn't work out well for your family, but i can't blame these schools for tailoring their aid to attract poorer students. first off, those kids need the help the most. secondly these schools are constantly criticized for having so many wealthy students and thus want to address the issue
financial aid is prioritized for the most needy. the top 5% of american households are not the most needy. i just don't see a problem with it
Our DD could not have gotten into an Ivy but certainly something in the top 30. That said, I come from the school of thought that the UofMN teaches classes like Biochem, Chem, Stats, etc the same as Stanford. Now there ARE special paths for brilliant kids inside of the best universities that make them far superior. But the bulk of the Harvard student body for instance isn't on that fast path.
But as a Dentist, where you go for UG is much less important than say Finance. Hence, I saved the $$'s. It was MUCH more important for her to stay out of debt. I paid for the UG and now 1/2 of the grad school plus living expenses. So I'll be paying well over $xxxK (I refuse to calculate it because I might grow ill).
For my DS, he is in a different league. That said, we have a top rated biology department here at the UofMN and his tuition would have been a total of $6K per year (we only have to pay for room and board). Again, I didn't see the value of blowing the money up front when we have a top 16 biology department in the country here in MN. I was planning on paying 1/2 of his grad school as well. But as stated earlier, he is at a SA.
So in short, I'm not bitter or envious. If I had another zero after my net worth then "why not". Or, if I have one less zero next to my annual income again, "why not". But when $200Kish is REAL money to our family, I'm not going to foot that bill when we had such a great choice here. For that matter, we are three hours away from Madison with tuition reciprocity. We didn't apply but I suspect the total 4 year price would be about the same as the UofMN with merit scholarships.
i agree with all of that. i do think you should (and you probably do) realize that your children are very fortunate to have a financially strong and thoughtful family. likewise jobaba whose parents saved conscientiously. that's great and i intend to parent likewise
many of the children at my alma mater were from families like this who simply made different (but still reasonable) choices than you about financial priorities and found a way to pay what they had to to go there. for instance, they might not pay 1/2 of grad school for their children as you are. their children may want to do a field where the expense is worth it, or they may simply consider the experience worth it regardless of the field. there are many ways to skin this particular cat. i do actually feel you probably *could* afford it, but simply made a reasonable choice not to (and particularly so given the field of dentistry)
and of course there were quite a few who had that extra zero at the end of their income so it was trivial for them to pay
but in my case, my parents neither saved nor contributed. to them the ~$40k they were expected to provide might as well have been $40 million. they were basically well intentioned financial screw ups (among other things :P). i had to file my father's prior year tax forms for him just to get financial aid. but the university worked with me to find a way for me to attend. they gave me a bunch, i borrowed some, and i worked *a lot* during college and summers. and then i walked away with ~$35k in debt and a great degree worth every penny of that debt (both financially and personally). every other student there who I met that was from circumstances like mine felt the same way
i don't think the choices i made were any easier than that of a student whose parents were comfortably in the six figure range but not in the seven figure range - even if the total debt incurred was lower in my case. in almost every case such children have a lot of other things going for them to make up for it
so when i see people here posting how these colleges are only for the rich, or no one can afford them i just think it's a complete load of nonsense spoken by people who have no first hand experience with it whatsoever. hence my seconding of brocco's point. there's a lot of baloney regarding these schools that gets repeated over and over here
I do think that anybody who is in the top 80% of household income (~100K) should be able to pay for their kids' college in its entirety, albeit it may be the state flagship.
I see this kind of statement on every college board and it is nonsense. $100k on Long Island is barely middle class with zero dollars of disposable income left to save for college. Shouldn't that family be eleigible for "need-based" aid? Shouldn't need-based aid be based on a families local need not on a ridiculous national average of income?
I see this kind of statement on every college board and it is nonsense. $100k on Long Island is barely middle class with zero dollars of disposable income left to save for college. Shouldn't that family be eleigible for "need-based" aid? Shouldn't need-based aid be based on a families local need not on a ridiculous national average of income?
That's not true. I live in the same area, and if I were married and my spouse made the same, we would be in a similar bracket.
The yearly tuition at Stonybrook is $8000 and lets give 12K for cost of lviing. That's 80K for 4 years. If you start saving when your kid is born, that shouldn't be a problem. Harvard with no aid is a different story.
BTW, it's tangential to the argument (and forum), but the COL argument is tired. I've heard people who make 80K in the bay area say they cannot survive. Insulting to the people who really can't.
The yearly tuition at Stonybrook is $8000 and lets give 12K for cost of lviing. That's 80K for 4 years. If you start saving when your kid is born, that shouldn't be a problem. Harvard with no aid is a different story.
that's one thing about NY, people complain about the cost of living as it relates to college expense without acknowledging that the public education options are very strong (for higher ed)
and as i pointed out earlier, harvard is certainly going to come up with some aid for a child coming from a family making 100k with limited savings. not a full ride, but probably very helpful
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobaba
I've heard people who make 80K in the bay area say they cannot survive. Insulting to the people who really can't.
the point i was trying to make was that some people point out the high sticker price of top ranked institutions as if that price takes away from the quality of the institution. alternatively their implication is that the sticker price shows that anyone who didn't go to a top school just couldn't afford it. it is insulting to all the bright and hard-working individuals at top institutions to imply that every joe blow at state university is just as hard-working and intelligent as he is- joe blow just couldn't afford the sticker price, right? the reality is that most of the top schools are affordable for everyone (there are some exceptions like NYU who is notoriously stingy with aid). yes, if you make $200k a year you may not feel like you're loaded when you've got three kids, high taxes, and other responsibilities, but the reality is that with a little planning paying out $200k each for your kids' education is not unaffordable. the issue is that top schools are PICKY and most joe blows just aren't going to be able to get in. there is NOTHING wrong with that. not everyone cares about school in high school and you don't have to be super academically inclined to succeed in life. a cheap, mediocre state school will effectively meet the needs of many students. but to pretend like everyone at a top school is just there because they were lucky enough to be able to afford it is insulting and annoying. they are the cream of the crop in the academic world.
the article i linked to was satire. many people in the upper middle class income range complain that they are just not privileged enough and that the lower income folks have alll the advantages. good luck trying to get good grades when you don't even know where your next meal will come from. secondary school options are also limited with limited income which severely limits lower and middle income groups as far as gaining admission to highly-ranked institutions. sorry, but the student at an ivy who came from a $40k income family is 9 times out of 10 going to be much more academically inclined than the poor little princess from the $150k family who had to go to a state school because she "couldn't afford" the tuition at the ivy. we all know that more than likely she just couldn't get in. it is so annoying to continuously see people mocking the achievements of others. admit you are not the cream of the crop in this one area of life and move on. don't assume that anyone who achieves something you did not is just more privileged than you are. take a second to respect the skills, and talents, abilities of others rather than assuming they must have had some unfair advantage over you. THAT is the mindset that bugs me when we get into this whole sticker price discussion. of course it makes more financial sense to send your average college student to an average school. Even an excellent student might do better at an average school depending upon scholarships and programs, but the sticker price of top schools is not a significant consideration in evaluating the quality of the school or the quality of its students.
That's not true. I live in the same area, and if I were married and my spouse made the same, we would be in a similar bracket.
The yearly tuition at Stonybrook is $8000 and lets give 12K for cost of lviing. That's 80K for 4 years. If you start saving when your kid is born, that shouldn't be a problem. Harvard with no aid is a different story.
BTW, it's tangential to the argument (and forum), but the COL argument is tired. I've heard people who make 80K in the bay area say they cannot survive. Insulting to the people who really can't.
So, you don't live here and you don't have a family yet feel qualified to refute the COL argument.
Of course COL should be a factor. It is NEED-BASED AID. What is your definition of need then if you don't take COL into account? Should universities be in the business of geographic redistribution also?
So, you don't live here and you don't have a family yet feel qualified to refute the COL argument.
Of course COL should be a factor. It is NEED-BASED AID. What is your definition of need then if you don't take COL into account? Should universities be in the business of geographic redistribution also?
A quick glance at your post history shows that you live to argue about this kind of stuff. So, I'll save myself some trouble. You win!
If you can't afford college for your kids, then move.
Tell me which school and the ballpark of around what your parents made at that time, and maybe you'll change my mind.
Your experience doesn't mirror mine at all. If what you say is true, then none of my friends would have attended Rutgers. They all would have went to NYU, Boston College, Tufts, etc, etc.
If your experience was in the 90's, things have changed a lot since then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). But most parents don't do that.
Now there ARE special paths for brilliant kids inside of the best universities that make them far superior. But the bulk of the Harvard student body for instance isn't on that fast path. 
