Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The level of self-pitying "DCUM middle-class" is gross. Stop feeling so sorry for yourself. Your kids have a lot of privilege and choice. If you really think that growing up poor is ultimately advantageous, why don't you give up your house and your belongings, take on an hourly wage job at in a nursing home, work nights at McDonalds,. enroll your kids in a Ward 8 public school, have them take the bus everywhere, work afterschool, and watch the younger siblings when you are out working. Don't forget to deny your kids opportunities like summer camp, because they need to work.
And then when your child gets top grades, high SAT scores (no tutoring, remember!), then please, come back on this board and let us know that the poor are really reciving an advantage in college admissions compared to the kids from families making $150K year.

No one is saying it is better to be poor. It's just that the very top schools are now by definition primarily the domain of kids whose parents qualify for financial aid. 2/3 in some cases. Families that don't meet the (fairly low) threshold for substantial financial aid are squeezed out, unless they are very well off or are willing to make a serious financial and often risky sacrifice.

State schools and merit aid schools are where the middle/umc must sensibly focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t know poor people make $150k or $100k.

Yeah, that's us, and I consider us middle class. Do the $200k+ people really think they are middle class? Maybe UMC at closest.

You must be one of those people posting from rural Kansas.

200K is middle class when the average house sells for 618K and 30 year mortgage rates are 7.2% and progressive federal and local taxes eat the first 40%+ of that income.

In the DC area, the upper band of MC is about $220K.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/02/middle-class-income-in-major-us-cities.html

And $220K is not all that different from $250K after taxes, certainly not enough to pay for $80K/year tuition.

So you’re talking about families who have save nothing toward college tuition until their kid enrolls freshman year? I certainly agree that family cannot cash flow $80k COA.

Well, you are assuming that people make $200K/ year from when a kid is born, thus saving $$ per year. Most people don't start out making that much.

Our HHI is $200K. We max out our retirement because we are in our 50s and have no family money (and actually, I help my family financially).

We manage to save $20K per year for college for two kids in the past couple of years, But, we haven't been able to do that from when they were born, only in the past few years. Prior to that, we were saving $5k to $10k/yr. They have $130K each.

You'd have to have saved $320K total for each kid in order for you to afford private for both. That's an insane amount of money for people considered middle class in a high col.

Even at $10K/yr at birth, with a rate of 6% growth, that would be about $300K. And this is assuming $200K income 20 years ago.

But if you were only making $100K when your kid was born and are now making $200K, you could chosen to save majority of that extra income over the last 18 years as income increased. Even if you sent only 25% to college savings, your kid would be set for In-state schools. If private elite universities was your goal, then you could choose to save 50%+ of your increase (after tax) and likely be able to swing it. Not that I'd recommend doing that, I'd stick with the In-state plus a bit extra as a college goal if that was my financial situation. But you could choose to save it all for college and live like you had been 18 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs with big endowments have generous aid too though.

I guess low income is the new privileged. If your family makes 80k a year, full ride. If they make 200k, you’re screwed.

Lol. I make $80k as a teacher and the least amount of money I’d have to pay for my kid to go to college is $22k. Nice discount but not a full ride or even close to it.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/09/1121953668/princeton-university-free-tuition-financial-aid

Very few schools would offer a free ride and they have 5% acceptance rates. Not realistic fir the vast majority of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs with big endowments have generous aid too though.

I guess low income is the new privileged. If your family makes 80k a year, full ride. If they make 200k, you’re screwed.

Lol. I make $80k as a teacher and the least amount of money I’d have to pay for my kid to go to college is $22k. Nice discount but not a full ride or even close to it.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/09/1121953668/princeton-university-free-tuition-financial-aid

Very few schools would offer a free ride and they have 5% acceptance rates. Not realistic fir the vast majority of students.

Hence the reference to "top" private colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs with big endowments have generous aid too though.

I guess low income is the new privileged. If your family makes 80k a year, full ride. If they make 200k, you’re screwed.

Lol. I make $80k as a teacher and the least amount of money I’d have to pay for my kid to go to college is $22k. Nice discount but not a full ride or even close to it.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/09/1121953668/princeton-university-free-tuition-financial-aid

Very few schools would offer a free ride and they have 5% acceptance rates. Not realistic fir the vast majority of students.

Hence the reference to "top" private colleges.

There are plenty of top colleges that don’t have the money to give all low income kids free rides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite is true,

according to the new research by Stanford economist Raj Chetty and co-authors.They show that 14.5% of students in America’s elite universities (eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke) are from families in the top 1% of income distribution, compared with only 3.8% from the bottom quintile. That’s a dramatic overrepresentation of the richest Americans.

But think about it. We are talking about a 320k education. Why would the very poor and the very rich be equally represented? Also there are many moor poor people than very rich people so while very rich people are of course over represented they seem to be very much outnumbered by lower income people on campus.

What are you talking about? Op is only referring to "top" colleges. These places are need blind and have endowments in the billions. Affluent students are way overrepresented. Spend a week at a top college and see how many poor kids you can find. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The level of self-pitying "DCUM middle-class" is gross. Stop feeling so sorry for yourself. Your kids have a lot of privilege and choice. If you really think that growing up poor is ultimately advantageous, why don't you give up your house and your belongings, take on an hourly wage job at in a nursing home, work nights at McDonalds,. enroll your kids in a Ward 8 public school, have them take the bus everywhere, work afterschool, and watch the younger siblings when you are out working. Don't forget to deny your kids opportunities like summer camp, because they need to work.
And then when your child gets top grades, high SAT scores (no tutoring, remember!), then please, come back on this board and let us know that the poor are really reciving an advantage in college admissions compared to the kids from families making $150K year.

No one is saying it is better to be poor. It's just that the very top schools are now by definition primarily the domain of kids whose parents qualify for financial aid. 2/3 in some cases. Families that don't meet the (fairly low) threshold for substantial financial aid are squeezed out, unless they are very well off or are willing to make a serious financial and often risky sacrifice.

State schools and merit aid schools are where the middle/umc must sensibly focus.

Why do you keep calling those of us in the 150k category poor? People, if you are making above $200/250k, you are well off. that doesn't make the rest of us poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The level of self-pitying "DCUM middle-class" is gross. Stop feeling so sorry for yourself. Your kids have a lot of privilege and choice. If you really think that growing up poor is ultimately advantageous, why don't you give up your house and your belongings, take on an hourly wage job at in a nursing home, work nights at McDonalds,. enroll your kids in a Ward 8 public school, have them take the bus everywhere, work afterschool, and watch the younger siblings when you are out working. Don't forget to deny your kids opportunities like summer camp, because they need to work.
And then when your child gets top grades, high SAT scores (no tutoring, remember!), then please, come back on this board and let us know that the poor are really reciving an advantage in college admissions compared to the kids from families making $150K year.

No one is saying it is better to be poor. It's just that the very top schools are now by definition primarily the domain of kids whose parents qualify for financial aid. 2/3 in some cases. Families that don't meet the (fairly low) threshold for substantial financial aid are squeezed out, unless they are very well off or are willing to make a serious financial and often risky sacrifice.

State schools and merit aid schools are where the middle/umc must sensibly focus.

Nothing new there. People should focus on getting an education that is affordable. Just like they should do with everything in life. I don't pay for private k-12 if I can't afford it or get scholarships to make it affordable. I don't buy a home that I can't afford. I don't buy a Lexus if all I can afford is a Honda. The list goes on. Most middle/umc can afford state schools or OOS/Private schools with merit, if they have planned and saved some. If they haven't then they search CC to 4 year state or nearby state where they can live at home and commute (Saving 12-18K at most schools).
Yes education is expensive. yes it has outpaced inflation. Yes, you should have known this was happening over the last 20+ years if you have a kid nearing college matriculation. But there are still ways to get a good education that is affordable to you. Complaining that you can't afford the T25 schools and it's not fair is not the best use of your energy. Fact is majority, even those with "resume" to get in, do NOT gain admission to these elite $80K schools. If you have the resume for that, you most definately can find a great school that is affordable to you. Find a private where your kid is 90%+ for stats and gives merit. You might attend college for much less than in-state costs.

[Anonymous]

Colleges have gotten way too expensive. let’s blame the poor for that! 🤦‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. OP, they are for rich people, with a smattering of merit-based poor and middle-class famliies so the rich can feel like they also made it on merit.

Yet 2/3 of students are receiving need based aid. So “primarily” doesn’t seem to work. And as I mentioned international students (typically full pay) are 10 pct. Doesn’t leave a lot of full pay domestic students. And half of them may not qualify for aid but parents are struggling to pay for it, borrowing against 401ks etc

Idiots in bolded.

Lol, you think it's a bad idea to wipe out your retirement assets to buy your daughter a $320k Bachelors degree in Anthropology from Bryn Mawr?

What if the 320k anthro degree from Bryn Mawr is a 320k artificial intelligence degree from Carnegie Melon or a 320k quantitative economics degree from MIT? It's not just majors that you consider to be lightweight at SLACs that have become unaffordable

I would never borrow against a 401K, take out a HELOC, co-sign for a private student loan or take out Parent Plus loans. Not even for a CS degree from CMU.

Would you spend all your life savings outside of retirement on it?

No only 529. Kid can take out stafford loans up to the limits (which are low), get merit aid and/or get a job if they want an expensive private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top LACs with big endowments have generous aid too though.

I guess low income is the new privileged. If your family makes 80k a year, full ride. If they make 200k, you’re screwed.

Lol. I make $80k as a teacher and the least amount of money I’d have to pay for my kid to go to college is $22k. Nice discount but not a full ride or even close to it.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/09/1121953668/princeton-university-free-tuition-financial-aid

Very few schools would offer a free ride and they have 5% acceptance rates. Not realistic fir the vast majority of students.

Hence the reference to "top" private colleges.

There are plenty of top colleges that don’t have the money to give all low income kids free rides.

Basically all the top 20+ universities and even LACs have very large endowments and meet full need. 40-65% are receiving financial aid with average awards $50-55k. Even the handful of need aware schools on this list meet full need. Endowments are huge, there are only so many libraries you can build, and this is how they are spending their money--increasing the percentage of low income students at the school (while at the same time jacking up the full retail price every year for families who don't make less than $100k).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. OP, they are for rich people, with a smattering of merit-based poor and middle-class famliies so the rich can feel like they also made it on merit.

Yet 2/3 of students are receiving need based aid. So “primarily” doesn’t seem to work. And as I mentioned international students (typically full pay) are 10 pct. Doesn’t leave a lot of full pay domestic students. And half of them may not qualify for aid but parents are struggling to pay for it, borrowing against 401ks etc

Idiots in bolded.

Lol, you think it's a bad idea to wipe out your retirement assets to buy your daughter a $320k Bachelors degree in Anthropology from Bryn Mawr?

What if the 320k anthro degree from Bryn Mawr is a 320k artificial intelligence degree from Carnegie Melon or a 320k quantitative economics degree from MIT? It's not just majors that you consider to be lightweight at SLACs that have become unaffordable

I would never borrow against a 401K, take out a HELOC, co-sign for a private student loan or take out Parent Plus loans. Not even for a CS degree from CMU.

It would be stupid to do so. Anyone qualified to get a CS degree from CMU will do well at any university. They will still find a FAANG job if that is what they want. Main difference is they will spend less to get their degree.
So if you can afford CMU great, but if not, find a school you can afford and get that CS degree

What? The top tech companies get far more applications per opening than any of the best universities. You don't just get a job like that because you want it, especially given the interview processes they have. Plus, with the pullback in tech, they probably are not going to be hiring as many entry level people as before either.

We’re in a weird time right now, but most of the time there’s been a massive shortage of experienced SWEs. You might not get a job at Google right out of undergrad but you’ll work there someday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite is true,

according to the new research by Stanford economist Raj Chetty and co-authors.They show that 14.5% of students in America’s elite universities (eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke) are from families in the top 1% of income distribution, compared with only 3.8% from the bottom quintile. That’s a dramatic overrepresentation of the richest Americans.

But think about it. We are talking about a 320k education. Why would the very poor and the very rich be equally represented? Also there are many moor poor people than very rich people so while very rich people are of course over represented they seem to be very much outnumbered by lower income people on campus.

What are you talking about? Op is only referring to "top" colleges. These places are need blind and have endowments in the billions. Affluent students are way overrepresented. Spend a week at a top college and see how many poor kids you can find. Good luck.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges have gotten way too expensive. let’s blame the poor for that! 🤦‍♀️

No, it's the colleges' fault. They keep raising prices while expanding aid to low income, squeezing out the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The level of self-pitying "DCUM middle-class" is gross. Stop feeling so sorry for yourself. Your kids have a lot of privilege and choice. If you really think that growing up poor is ultimately advantageous, why don't you give up your house and your belongings, take on an hourly wage job at in a nursing home, work nights at McDonalds,. enroll your kids in a Ward 8 public school, have them take the bus everywhere, work afterschool, and watch the younger siblings when you are out working. Don't forget to deny your kids opportunities like summer camp, because they need to work.
And then when your child gets top grades, high SAT scores (no tutoring, remember!), then please, come back on this board and let us know that the poor are really reciving an advantage in college admissions compared to the kids from families making $150K year.

No one is saying it is better to be poor. It's just that the very top schools are now by definition primarily the domain of kids whose parents qualify for financial aid. 2/3 in some cases. Families that don't meet the (fairly low) threshold for substantial financial aid are squeezed out, unless they are very well off or are willing to make a serious financial and often risky sacrifice.

State schools and merit aid schools are where the middle/umc must sensibly focus.

Have you read this thread?! Are you able to read between the lines here?