schools w/ no merit aid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

The point of this thread is that OP is upset to learn that no one will be subsidizing her child’s education at an elite college, effectively a luxury good. OP has no interest in understanding how well off her very privileged child is and what options there are. In her mind it is just not fair. I would ask fair to whom? If the cost of providing the education is reflected in the tuition room and board, why should the school pay for her student to go there? The reality is that the schools she wants her child to attend don’t need to buy high stats students with merit money. They have a made a decision that they will use their financial aid dollars to support students from families with lower incomes. It is a public policy call and I am not particularly sympathetic to OP given that her student has plenty of resources to obtain an excellent education debt free. She just wants the Mercedes. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

It's not a burden when said kid can afford a less expensive option based on merit aid and parents' savings. I shared a bedroom with 4 siblings and 8 people shared one bath growing up - you are just not gonna persuade me to feel bad for someone who can attend a school wildly better and more expensive than broad swaths of their peers. And probably grew up in a completely fine home along the way.

No one asked you to feel bad for anyone. I shared a bedroom too but this isn't the hard-luck story sweepstakes. It's in part a discussion of how college costs have far outpaced inflation - and that includes at public universities FYI. It is reasonable to be outraged and it's reasonable to perceive that as a burden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

The point of this thread is that OP is upset to learn that no one will be subsidizing her child’s education at an elite college, effectively a luxury good. OP has no interest in understanding how well off her very privileged child is and what options there are. In her mind it is just not fair. I would ask fair to whom? If the cost of providing the education is reflected in the tuition room and board, why should the school pay for her student to go there? The reality is that the schools she wants her child to attend don’t need to buy high stats students with merit money. They have a made a decision that they will use their financial aid dollars to support students from families with lower incomes. It is a public policy call and I am not particularly sympathetic to OP given that her student has plenty of resources to obtain an excellent education debt free. She just wants the Mercedes. Oh well.

OP has not expressed any of what you say she has communicated. She has not expressed interest in having her child's college costs be "subsidized" (and FYI, merit money and FA do not come out of other students' tuition so settle down there on that point). OP is outraged and disappointed that despite having saved since her child's birth, she cannot pay for her child's education at a school that would suit her better than other, less expensive options. Outrage and disappointment are appropriate responses to the rising costs of higher education, regardless of whether you and your child are privileged or well-off or otherwise well-situated relative to the general population.

And FYI: Universities' choices re: where to allocate their money are not "public policy" decisions, unless you are talking about public institutions. They are decisions made by private institutions and they can be changed without action from any legislative body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

It's not a burden when said kid can afford a less expensive option based on merit aid and parents' savings. I shared a bedroom with 4 siblings and 8 people shared one bath growing up - you are just not gonna persuade me to feel bad for someone who can attend a school wildly better and more expensive than broad swaths of their peers. And probably grew up in a completely fine home along the way.

No one asked you to feel bad for anyone. I shared a bedroom too but this isn't the hard-luck story sweepstakes. It's in part a discussion of how college costs have far outpaced inflation - and that includes at public universities FYI. It is reasonable to be outraged and it's reasonable to perceive that as a burden.

Actually, this started with a whine that elite D3 schools like Wellesley don’t offer merit aid and her family has only saved $160k and would have to give up travel to afford to send her. The cost of college is outrageous, but that is not the main take away from the original post. This was followed by OP lashing out at posters that tried to addd a usual perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

The point of this thread is that OP is upset to learn that no one will be subsidizing her child’s education at an elite college, effectively a luxury good. OP has no interest in understanding how well off her very privileged child is and what options there are. In her mind it is just not fair. I would ask fair to whom? If the cost of providing the education is reflected in the tuition room and board, why should the school pay for her student to go there? The reality is that the schools she wants her child to attend don’t need to buy high stats students with merit money. They have a made a decision that they will use their financial aid dollars to support students from families with lower incomes. It is a public policy call and I am not particularly sympathetic to OP given that her student has plenty of resources to obtain an excellent education debt free. She just wants the Mercedes. Oh well.

OP. Where did I say it "wasn't fair?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

Yeah well my grandpa drove a truck and my grandma dropped out of high school at 15 to wait tables. My mom also dropped out of high school to work at KFC to fry chicken. I worked year round to pay for a state flagship you clearly look down on. I really have no sympathy for the fact that you feel entitled to your grandparents’ private school but didn’t successfully leverage all that generational privilege to afford. Actually, I’ll be honest. I’m effing thrilled you can’t have it. I hope all your spots go to first gen kids. Now you know. It was never a meritocracy. It was always something your crusty ass relatives were hoarding while pretending they earned it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

The point of this thread is that OP is upset to learn that no one will be subsidizing her child’s education at an elite college, effectively a luxury good. OP has no interest in understanding how well off her very privileged child is and what options there are. In her mind it is just not fair. I would ask fair to whom? If the cost of providing the education is reflected in the tuition room and board, why should the school pay for her student to go there? The reality is that the schools she wants her child to attend don’t need to buy high stats students with merit money. They have a made a decision that they will use their financial aid dollars to support students from families with lower incomes. It is a public policy call and I am not particularly sympathetic to OP given that her student has plenty of resources to obtain an excellent education debt free. She just wants the Mercedes. Oh well.

OP has not expressed any of what you say she has communicated. She has not expressed interest in having her child's college costs be "subsidized" (and FYI, merit money and FA do not come out of other students' tuition so settle down there on that point). OP is outraged and disappointed that despite having saved since her child's birth, she cannot pay for her child's education at a school that would suit her better than other, less expensive options. Outrage and disappointment are appropriate responses to the rising costs of higher education, regardless of whether you and your child are privileged or well-off or otherwise well-situated relative to the general population.

And FYI: Universities' choices re: where to allocate their money are not "public policy" decisions, unless you are talking about public institutions. They are decisions made by private institutions and they can be changed without action from any legislative body.

Wow. Maybe this is OP? The follow on hateful responses OP made to posters that tried to be helpful speak for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

It's not a burden when said kid can afford a less expensive option based on merit aid and parents' savings. I shared a bedroom with 4 siblings and 8 people shared one bath growing up - you are just not gonna persuade me to feel bad for someone who can attend a school wildly better and more expensive than broad swaths of their peers. And probably grew up in a completely fine home along the way.

No one asked you to feel bad for anyone. I shared a bedroom too but this isn't the hard-luck story sweepstakes. It's in part a discussion of how college costs have far outpaced inflation - and that includes at public universities FYI. It is reasonable to be outraged and it's reasonable to perceive that as a burden.

Actually, this started with a whine that elite D3 schools like Wellesley don’t offer merit aid and her family has only saved $160k and would have to give up travel to afford to send her. The cost of college is outrageous, but that is not the main take away from the original post. This was followed by OP lashing out at posters that tried to addd a usual perspective.

OP didn't whine and didn't mention travel - she expressed appropriate outrage. In response, some people on this thread e.g. comparing higher education to luxury cars have been mean (understatement) to OP.

Every time this topic comes up on this board, the vast majority of responders pick on the OP and accuse them of being entitled, a whiner, a spendthrift, the list goes on. Only rarely does the discussion focus on the outrageous ever-rising costs of higher education and how unfair to the U.S. population in general that is (and it is). It's a huge problem. Outrage is an appropriate response to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

The point of this thread is that OP is upset to learn that no one will be subsidizing her child’s education at an elite college, effectively a luxury good. OP has no interest in understanding how well off her very privileged child is and what options there are. In her mind it is just not fair. I would ask fair to whom? If the cost of providing the education is reflected in the tuition room and board, why should the school pay for her student to go there? The reality is that the schools she wants her child to attend don’t need to buy high stats students with merit money. They have a made a decision that they will use their financial aid dollars to support students from families with lower incomes. It is a public policy call and I am not particularly sympathetic to OP given that her student has plenty of resources to obtain an excellent education debt free. She just wants the Mercedes. Oh well.

OP has not expressed any of what you say she has communicated. She has not expressed interest in having her child's college costs be "subsidized" (and FYI, merit money and FA do not come out of other students' tuition so settle down there on that point). OP is outraged and disappointed that despite having saved since her child's birth, she cannot pay for her child's education at a school that would suit her better than other, less expensive options. Outrage and disappointment are appropriate responses to the rising costs of higher education, regardless of whether you and your child are privileged or well-off or otherwise well-situated relative to the general population.

And FYI: Universities' choices re: where to allocate their money are not "public policy" decisions, unless you are talking about public institutions. They are decisions made by private institutions and they can be changed without action from any legislative body.

Wow. Maybe this is OP? The follow on hateful responses OP made to posters that tried to be helpful speak for themselves.

Not OP. A different PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

The point of this thread is that OP is upset to learn that no one will be subsidizing her child’s education at an elite college, effectively a luxury good. OP has no interest in understanding how well off her very privileged child is and what options there are. In her mind it is just not fair. I would ask fair to whom? If the cost of providing the education is reflected in the tuition room and board, why should the school pay for her student to go there? The reality is that the schools she wants her child to attend don’t need to buy high stats students with merit money. They have a made a decision that they will use their financial aid dollars to support students from families with lower incomes. It is a public policy call and I am not particularly sympathetic to OP given that her student has plenty of resources to obtain an excellent education debt free. She just wants the Mercedes. Oh well.

OP has not expressed any of what you say she has communicated. She has not expressed interest in having her child's college costs be "subsidized" (and FYI, merit money and FA do not come out of other students' tuition so settle down there on that point). OP is outraged and disappointed that despite having saved since her child's birth, she cannot pay for her child's education at a school that would suit her better than other, less expensive options. Outrage and disappointment are appropriate responses to the rising costs of higher education, regardless of whether you and your child are privileged or well-off or otherwise well-situated relative to the general population.

And FYI: Universities' choices re: where to allocate their money are not "public policy" decisions, unless you are talking about public institutions. They are decisions made by private institutions and they can be changed without action from any legislative body.

Wow. Maybe this is OP? The follow on hateful responses OP made to posters that tried to be helpful speak for themselves.

Nope, I'm OP. But the PP said a lot of things I agree with and better than i did.

And, no, not all of those posters were being helpful. Some were sanctimonious and judgmental and making conclusions/observations based on a snippet of information about my background and situation. And no, I'm not going to just take that sort of thing. Sorry you don't like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

Yeah well my grandpa drove a truck and my grandma dropped out of high school at 15 to wait tables. My mom also dropped out of high school to work at KFC to fry chicken. I worked year round to pay for a state flagship you clearly look down on. I really have no sympathy for the fact that you feel entitled to your grandparents’ private school but didn’t successfully leverage all that generational privilege to afford. Actually, I’ll be honest. I’m effing thrilled you can’t have it. I hope all your spots go to first gen kids. Now you know. It was never a meritocracy. It was always something your crusty ass relatives were hoarding while pretending they earned it.

Actually, the opposite is true: It's hoarded now. It was not hoarded by anyone a few generations ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

Yeah well my grandpa drove a truck and my grandma dropped out of high school at 15 to wait tables. My mom also dropped out of high school to work at KFC to fry chicken. I worked year round to pay for a state flagship you clearly look down on. I really have no sympathy for the fact that you feel entitled to your grandparents’ private school but didn’t successfully leverage all that generational privilege to afford. Actually, I’ll be honest. I’m effing thrilled you can’t have it. I hope all your spots go to first gen kids. Now you know. It was never a meritocracy. It was always something your crusty ass relatives were hoarding while pretending they earned it.

Actually, the opposite is true: It's hoarded now. It was not hoarded by anyone a few generations ago.

It depends on what time you want to look at. Post WWII higher education opened and there was time where you could work your way though an elite school. Those days have ended. Prior to the post war GI bill boom, higher education was the domain of the elite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

Yeah well my grandpa drove a truck and my grandma dropped out of high school at 15 to wait tables. My mom also dropped out of high school to work at KFC to fry chicken. I worked year round to pay for a state flagship you clearly look down on. I really have no sympathy for the fact that you feel entitled to your grandparents’ private school but didn’t successfully leverage all that generational privilege to afford. Actually, I’ll be honest. I’m effing thrilled you can’t have it. I hope all your spots go to first gen kids. Now you know. It was never a meritocracy. It was always something your crusty ass relatives were hoarding while pretending they earned it.

wow. forget education. PP just needs help

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

Yeah well my grandpa drove a truck and my grandma dropped out of high school at 15 to wait tables. My mom also dropped out of high school to work at KFC to fry chicken. I worked year round to pay for a state flagship you clearly look down on. I really have no sympathy for the fact that you feel entitled to your grandparents’ private school but didn’t successfully leverage all that generational privilege to afford. Actually, I’ll be honest. I’m effing thrilled you can’t have it. I hope all your spots go to first gen kids. Now you know. It was never a meritocracy. It was always something your crusty ass relatives were hoarding while pretending they earned it.

Actually, the opposite is true: It's hoarded now. It was not hoarded by anyone a few generations ago.

It depends on what time you want to look at. Post WWII higher education opened and there was time where you could work your way though an elite school. Those days have ended. Prior to the post war GI bill boom, higher education was the domain of the elite

Yes, a few generations ago was Post WWII. That is the memory reference point for people contributing to this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long story short: we will not get any financial aid. We make too much for help but don't make enough to go full pay at a private in a way that leaves any wiggle room.

We are just starting this process, and child is an athlete that is in the midst of recruiting (only D3 at this point b/c of NCAA limits- and FTR I don't care if DC plays a sport or not but she does). I'm looking at the finances of the various schools and was shocked to learn that some of the schools she's been talking to give NO MERIT aid. DC has excellent grades, community service, ECs, and athletics.

I get she's one of many like man others . . . and I know at DC there are no athletic scholarships. But, how are people affording places like Wellesley? Their website and what I'm finding says they give ZERO aid on the basis that, essentially, "everyone there is special."

Yes, she can look elsewhere. And she is. But it is so sad to have to shut down a possibility that would, honestly, be such a perfect fit for her in every way. With room and board, etc. the cost per year is nearly $80K!!!! Two years would eat up more than our 529 has in it. Super bummed to have to limit her.

They are either poor enough to get a lot of aid, rich enough to not need it, or had parents putting away a lot of money from conception.

Well it is no shock that top schools would cost ~$80K/year when my kid would enter college. So we did plan for that and sock away as much as we could from an early age, as we knew we wouldn't qualify for any FA. Had we not been able to do that, our kid would have had to search out more affordable schools.

Congratulations on making enough money to save 320k per kid?

No, it's congratulation on planning. Anyone smart enough to save $160K should be smart enough to know that college will be up to $80K/year in 2022. SO if attending those "Top schools" is important you plan accordingly.
Had we not been able to save enough, I would have set the mindset with my kids that while you can apply to T40 schools, we might not be able to afford them. So, you need to have a balanced list of college choices. To me, the most important part is finding great schools that are affordable to YOU. And there are many, many, many choices available for everyone. The OP has ~$40K/year saved for DD. There are literally hundreds of amazing options that will allow DD to graduate debt free. If only the OP would change their mindset and focus on what's available instead of complaining.

Similarly, I don't buy a house/car/vacation that I can't afford. I live within my means, or deal with the consequences. I don't expect others to compensate me for my lack of planning. OP could likely now cash flow another $10K+/year if they wanted to, based on their statements. So if the Top college is that important, they can do that and take parent loans and pay them off now that they have a higher income. (not saying I'd recommend that, as I actually think that's a bad idea----no school is worth going into debt for). But there are options. Smartest option (IMO) is to find a great school list that is affordable....and many many exist, just not T20 schools.

This is such an uber-American, "personal responsibility" thought pattern. So when college costs $200K/year in the future, anyone who didn't "plan" should just be shut out? How about when it gets to a million dollars a year? Are we all good with it only being for the children of Elon Musk and the like and if we can't do it, well then the fault is somehow our own?

It has not always been like this. Private schools have always been more expensive than public, but not to the degree they are now.



Instead of pointing fingers at people for "lack of planning" by saving $300K+ / child, why aren't we demanding to know why the costs are so outrageously impossible for even wealthy people to handle?

You are NOT SHUT OUT. You are simply shut out of the “luxury” product version of college. You feel entitled to a Louis Vuitton degree for your kid on your Coach budget. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the idea that admissions are the ultimate arbiter of your kids’ merit but there are plenty of affordable options including community college.

That is your reaction to these graphics?

My reaction to the graphics is that they’re stupid because they compare low income kids to sticker tuition. We all know that’s not the beef on DCUM. The complaint is that high income people are supposed to fork over their wealth. We all know low income people are getting majorly subsidized by the DCUM set so their incomes are irrelevant.

These graphs are also just another way of showing growing income inequality and how schools have fully seized the opportunity to take from the wealthy. Due to the inequality, they know there’s more money to take, and they are taking it.

That's not what they depict. It's not about low-income kids and sticker tuition. It's about tuition relative to HHI (in all classes). High income people have always forked over their wealth; it just wasn't as much in the past (yes, including for private schools).

The point of this thread is that college tuition raises have so greatly outstripped inflation and salary growth that it's priced out many people who otherwise could have afforded full tuition in the past. Colleges are not BMWs or Maseratis or Hondas. They are institutions of higher education. It's become a real burden for most working families, whether upper middle or lower middle class, to pay for higher education. Not being able to afford a luxury car is not a burden, but for many people, not being able to afford a college that our grandparents (who made less money, adjusted for inflation) could have paid for easily is a burden.

In my generation (I'm 61yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute $20,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $32,838 today in 2023. But that school now costs over $80,000/year.

See also

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/

Once upon a time, a summer spent scooping ice cream could pay for a year of college. Today, the average student's annual tuition is equivalent to 991 hours behind the counter.

Yeah well my grandpa drove a truck and my grandma dropped out of high school at 15 to wait tables. My mom also dropped out of high school to work at KFC to fry chicken. I worked year round to pay for a state flagship you clearly look down on. I really have no sympathy for the fact that you feel entitled to your grandparents’ private school but didn’t successfully leverage all that generational privilege to afford. Actually, I’ll be honest. I’m effing thrilled you can’t have it. I hope all your spots go to first gen kids. Now you know. It was never a meritocracy. It was always something your crusty ass relatives were hoarding while pretending they earned it.

Actually, the opposite is true: It's hoarded now. It was not hoarded by anyone a few generations ago.

It WAS hoarded (it’s always been very limited seats). It was just being accessed by people who met standards your family could meet, like the right high schools, the right extracurriculars, the right background. Now you’re mad because different people are accessing it. Deal with it.