What is a "donut hole family"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please explain, because it sounds like people with nice resources feeling entitled to more than they can afford.

No. It is a family that won’t qualify for FA but that doesn’t have the resources to reasonably handle tuition at the priciest/most elite colleges. I don’t know about families feeling entitled, but from the colleges’ standpoint it is a real problem that they are concerned about. They don’t want their student populations to come from two stratified socioeconomic groups.

Sept top colleges aren’t stratified in that way. They still enrolled very few lower income students on a relative basis. This is a red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is this describes a bunch of different families. And their situations may be sympathetic or not depending on your viewpoint.

Some people windup in the donut hole because they have more kids. If you have one or two kids, it's easier to sacrifice to get those kids through school than if you have three or four. People with more kids also struggle to save as much for college and feel frustrated when schools won't make up the difference. Personal bias here: I have little sympathy for these parents because I don't understand how you keep having kids without considering how you will pay for their college. But I have a lot of sympathy for these kids because it puts them in a really crappy situation where their existence is itself the thing keeping them from going to a school they got into but can't afford. Parents who have 3+ kids and then complain about how much college costs makes me angry.

But one I have more sympathy for is when one or both parents own a business and financial aid expects them to be willing to borrow against or liquidate business assets in order to pay for school. That seems like such a terrible choice. I know people who have done it and respect how much they are willing to put on the line for their kids education, but I'm not sure if I'd be able to make the same choice. That's a really tough one.

Another one is people who had kids late and are nearing retirement, and get caught two ways. First, they don't save as much for college because they are also saving for retirement (sometimes they are also caring for elderly parents and it's a squeeze). Second, they may have more liquid assets specifically because they are looking to retire soon, and financial aid will lay claim to those. I feel bad for these folks because often being late to parenting is not a choice. However, as someone who had kids late, I also just assumed that meant I'd have to work a little longer to get my kid through school. So again, this is something you can anticipate and should be able to if having kids late because you are old enough to understand how this works.

I also think people who come from modest backgrounds and who went to schools on scholarships sometimes don't understand how to save for college and then are surprised when their income pushes them into the "no aid" position. I have sympathy for this one because it's a knowledge gap -- their parents didn't save for college either and they just didn't know better. Though I do think if you are going to have kids you have to educate yourself. This was my DH and I had to work on him because he was convinced our kid would just qualify for aid. Now he gets that even though we aren't wealthy, we have more resource than our parents and we have to dedicate some of them to college savings if we want to ensure our kid can go to school. If I hadn't worked on him, though, we'd have zero saved.

There are probably others I'm unaware of. But these are the ones I hear the most. I think it's hardest for people who are outliers in their school or social community in terms of money. If everyone else you know can afford to pay out of pocket, and you can't because of the number of kids or your age, you might feel like it's unfair. And likewise, if everyone you know qualifies for aid because you are in a lower-income community, and you don't because you run a business with assets and therefore are actually in a higher bracket, it could feel unfair.

But usually it's not unfair. The actual unfair thing is that money is such a barrier to higher education in general in this country and having kids pretty much requires you to save for college, while also saving for retirement, while also paying your health insurance premiums. And yet we still have fairly high taxes! It's hard, but if it's "unfair" it's unfair to everyone except the very rich who inherited their wealth. And that's by design.

Even by DCUM standards this is an incredibly judgmental post. Congratulations! You’ve outdone us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is this describes a bunch of different families. And their situations may be sympathetic or not depending on your viewpoint.

Some people windup in the donut hole because they have more kids. If you have one or two kids, it's easier to sacrifice to get those kids through school than if you have three or four. People with more kids also struggle to save as much for college and feel frustrated when schools won't make up the difference. Personal bias here: I have little sympathy for these parents because I don't understand how you keep having kids without considering how you will pay for their college. But I have a lot of sympathy for these kids because it puts them in a really crappy situation where their existence is itself the thing keeping them from going to a school they got into but can't afford. Parents who have 3+ kids and then complain about how much college costs makes me angry.

But one I have more sympathy for is when one or both parents own a business and financial aid expects them to be willing to borrow against or liquidate business assets in order to pay for school. That seems like such a terrible choice. I know people who have done it and respect how much they are willing to put on the line for their kids education, but I'm not sure if I'd be able to make the same choice. That's a really tough one.

Another one is people who had kids late and are nearing retirement, and get caught two ways. First, they don't save as much for college because they are also saving for retirement (sometimes they are also caring for elderly parents and it's a squeeze). Second, they may have more liquid assets specifically because they are looking to retire soon, and financial aid will lay claim to those. I feel bad for these folks because often being late to parenting is not a choice. However, as someone who had kids late, I also just assumed that meant I'd have to work a little longer to get my kid through school. So again, this is something you can anticipate and should be able to if having kids late because you are old enough to understand how this works.

I also think people who come from modest backgrounds and who went to schools on scholarships sometimes don't understand how to save for college and then are surprised when their income pushes them into the "no aid" position. I have sympathy for this one because it's a knowledge gap -- their parents didn't save for college either and they just didn't know better. Though I do think if you are going to have kids you have to educate yourself. This was my DH and I had to work on him because he was convinced our kid would just qualify for aid. Now he gets that even though we aren't wealthy, we have more resource than our parents and we have to dedicate some of them to college savings if we want to ensure our kid can go to school. If I hadn't worked on him, though, we'd have zero saved.

There are probably others I'm unaware of. But these are the ones I hear the most. I think it's hardest for people who are outliers in their school or social community in terms of money. If everyone else you know can afford to pay out of pocket, and you can't because of the number of kids or your age, you might feel like it's unfair. And likewise, if everyone you know qualifies for aid because you are in a lower-income community, and you don't because you run a business with assets and therefore are actually in a higher bracket, it could feel unfair.

But usually it's not unfair. The actual unfair thing is that money is such a barrier to higher education in general in this country and having kids pretty much requires you to save for college, while also saving for retirement, while also paying your health insurance premiums. And yet we still have fairly high taxes! It's hard, but if it's "unfair" it's unfair to everyone except the very rich who inherited their wealth. And that's by design.

Even by DCUM standards this is an incredibly judgmental post. Congratulations! You’ve outdone us all.

Especially impressive is feeling sorry for old moms like her but not fertile people, who she is jealous of. Cool!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please explain, because it sounds like people with nice resources feeling entitled to more than they can afford.

No. It is a family that won’t qualify for FA but that doesn’t have the resources to reasonably handle tuition at the priciest/most elite colleges. I don’t know about families feeling entitled, but from the colleges’ standpoint it is a real problem that they are concerned about. They don’t want their student populations to come from two stratified socioeconomic groups.

This most closely describes the issue in an unbiased way. While I don’t expect massive FA, we also can’t comfortably pay for expensive private college. The colleges take into account all assets, which is great. No one should get to hide their wealth in a boat purchase. At the same time, we can’t liquidate our retirement savings. We would have to pay penalties. The government has penalties to discourage using your retirement money for non-retirement. So, we find ourselves in a spot where savings that we can’t use without expensive penalties is used to indicate we have “too much” money.

Meanwhile, our cash flow is not high, so it’s hard to swing the full cost.

Before people call me a whiner or tell me how lucky I am, I know I am lucky. I’m not complaining. We could empty our retirement accounts, but it would then lead us into poverty and that doesn’t help society or ourselves.

I don't know anyone who thinks paying for "expensive private college" is comfortable. This is the problem with donut hole discussions - of course it's expensive! It's expensive for everyone! If you think you're hard done by because you can't just instruct your household manager to write a check and forget about it moments later, you have skewed expectations in life. "Not outrageously wealthy" is not a protected class.

I'm 60 years old and graduated from a NESCAC school in 1983. The year I started, it cost about $8K for tuition, room, and board. I paid about $2000-$2500 of that from summer and part-time job (during the school year) earnings and my parents paid the rest. They did the same for my three siblings. It was not "comfortable" meaning "cushy," but it was completely doable. Some of my friends at similar schools and at Ivy League schools needed loans, and they took them out (usually around $6K-$8K total) and paid them off fairly quickly. My friends at public universities were able to work their way through college earning minimum wage.

Fast-forward, that private school now costs $80K all-in. Very few families with four children could pay for it "comfortably" no matter how hard the kids worked during summers.

That is what people are angry about.

Once upon a time, private college was not expensive. Everyone knows that. I'm not arguing that college costs are reasonable now, I'm saying that the posters complaining about being in a "donut hole" because they cannot comfortably pay for the most expensive option are not adding anything to the discussion. The nature of an option being the most expensive is that . . . it's expensive and everyone can't afford it! And unless you're very rich, it's going to sting to write that check. If you can still afford it, just "uncomfortably"; if you can still handle tuition, just not "reasonably" - that's not sympathetic, and it's not a donut hole. And there are literally thousands of other options at lower price points. But they've convinced themselves they're uniquely challenged because the best of the best isn't a given for their kid.

If you want to talk about spiraling tuition costs, let's talk about the tax breaks that were funded by gutting state budgets for higher ed. It's not a donut hole discussion it's a political discussion. But the same people moaning that they're stuck in a donut hole are voting for the "drown it in a bathtub" people, and can't tell they did it to themselves.

Right, but again: Most everyone COULD afford the EXACT SAME THING a generation or two ago, with a little effort.

It hurts to tell a super high-performer that he can't even apply to elite schools because you can't pay for them. Is it a tragedy? No. But when you have a MEMORY of those schools being in fact, affordable when you were his age, it hurts.

That's it.

P.S. I agree re: gutting state budgets for higher ed.

No, it's not true that everyone could afford it a generation ago. Sorry, but you were in a bubble if you thought so.

A generation ago, schools toped out in the 30k range. With federal loans and modest parental contribution (or flat out grants if you are talking about the elite schools), everyone could afford them

Exactly.

[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:Could someone please explain, because it sounds like people with nice resources feeling entitled to more than they can afford.

No. It is a family that won’t qualify for FA but that doesn’t have the resources to reasonably handle tuition at the priciest/most elite colleges. I don’t know about families feeling entitled, but from the colleges’ standpoint it is a real problem that they are concerned about. They don’t want their student populations to come from two stratified socioeconomic groups.

This most closely describes the issue in an unbiased way. While I don’t expect massive FA, we also can’t comfortably pay for expensive private college. The colleges take into account all assets, which is great. No one should get to hide their wealth in a boat purchase. At the same time, we can’t liquidate our retirement savings. We would have to pay penalties. The government has penalties to discourage using your retirement money for non-retirement. So, we find ourselves in a spot where savings that we can’t use without expensive penalties is used to indicate we have “too much” money.

Meanwhile, our cash flow is not high, so it’s hard to swing the full cost.

Before people call me a whiner or tell me how lucky I am, I know I am lucky. I’m not complaining. We could empty our retirement accounts, but it would then lead us into poverty and that doesn’t help society or ourselves.

I don't know anyone who thinks paying for "expensive private college" is comfortable. This is the problem with donut hole discussions - of course it's expensive! It's expensive for everyone! If you think you're hard done by because you can't just instruct your household manager to write a check and forget about it moments later, you have skewed expectations in life. "Not outrageously wealthy" is not a protected class.

I'm 60 years old and graduated from a NESCAC school in 1983. The year I started, it cost about $8K for tuition, room, and board. I paid about $2000-$2500 of that from summer and part-time job (during the school year) earnings and my parents paid the rest. They did the same for my three siblings. It was not "comfortable" meaning "cushy," but it was completely doable. Some of my friends at similar schools and at Ivy League schools needed loans, and they took them out (usually around $6K-$8K total) and paid them off fairly quickly. My friends at public universities were able to work their way through college earning minimum wage.

Fast-forward, that private school now costs $80K all-in. Very few families with four children could pay for it "comfortably" no matter how hard the kids worked during summers.

That is what people are angry about.

Once upon a time, private college was not expensive. Everyone knows that. I'm not arguing that college costs are reasonable now, I'm saying that the posters complaining about being in a "donut hole" because they cannot comfortably pay for the most expensive option are not adding anything to the discussion. The nature of an option being the most expensive is that . . . it's expensive and everyone can't afford it! And unless you're very rich, it's going to sting to write that check. If you can still afford it, just "uncomfortably"; if you can still handle tuition, just not "reasonably" - that's not sympathetic, and it's not a donut hole. And there are literally thousands of other options at lower price points. But they've convinced themselves they're uniquely challenged because the best of the best isn't a given for their kid.

If you want to talk about spiraling tuition costs, let's talk about the tax breaks that were funded by gutting state budgets for higher ed. It's not a donut hole discussion it's a political discussion. But the same people moaning that they're stuck in a donut hole are voting for the "drown it in a bathtub" people, and can't tell they did it to themselves.

Right, but again: Most everyone COULD afford the EXACT SAME THING a generation or two ago, with a little effort.

It hurts to tell a super high-performer that he can't even apply to elite schools because you can't pay for them. Is it a tragedy? No. But when you have a MEMORY of those schools being in fact, affordable when you were his age, it hurts.

That's it.

P.S. I agree re: gutting state budgets for higher ed.

No, it's not true that everyone could afford it a generation ago. Sorry, but you were in a bubble if you thought so.

A generation ago, schools toped out in the 30k range. With federal loans and modest parental contribution (or flat out grants if you are talking about the elite schools), everyone could afford them

No. Absolutely false. Maybe everyone at your high school could afford them, but the idea that everyone in America could afford to send their kids to college AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY is so blind to reality as to be a joke.

The elite private schools met full need a generation ago.

...with loans. Not grants. Loans.

Student loans actually covered costs 40 years ago, and the total over four years was less $ than a college graduate's salary at her first job.

Now, Parent Plus loans would be required, as the student loans (limited to just over $25K over four years) don't begin to touch the cost of college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please explain, because it sounds like people with nice resources feeling entitled to more than they can afford.

No. It is a family that won’t qualify for FA but that doesn’t have the resources to reasonably handle tuition at the priciest/most elite colleges. I don’t know about families feeling entitled, but from the colleges’ standpoint it is a real problem that they are concerned about. They don’t want their student populations to come from two stratified socioeconomic groups.

This most closely describes the issue in an unbiased way. While I don’t expect massive FA, we also can’t comfortably pay for expensive private college. The colleges take into account all assets, which is great. No one should get to hide their wealth in a boat purchase. At the same time, we can’t liquidate our retirement savings. We would have to pay penalties. The government has penalties to discourage using your retirement money for non-retirement. So, we find ourselves in a spot where savings that we can’t use without expensive penalties is used to indicate we have “too much” money.

Meanwhile, our cash flow is not high, so it’s hard to swing the full cost.

Before people call me a whiner or tell me how lucky I am, I know I am lucky. I’m not complaining. We could empty our retirement accounts, but it would then lead us into poverty and that doesn’t help society or ourselves.

I don't know anyone who thinks paying for "expensive private college" is comfortable. This is the problem with donut hole discussions - of course it's expensive! It's expensive for everyone! If you think you're hard done by because you can't just instruct your household manager to write a check and forget about it moments later, you have skewed expectations in life. "Not outrageously wealthy" is not a protected class.

I'm 60 years old and graduated from a NESCAC school in 1983. The year I started, it cost about $8K for tuition, room, and board. I paid about $2000-$2500 of that from summer and part-time job (during the school year) earnings and my parents paid the rest. They did the same for my three siblings. It was not "comfortable" meaning "cushy," but it was completely doable. Some of my friends at similar schools and at Ivy League schools needed loans, and they took them out (usually around $6K-$8K total) and paid them off fairly quickly. My friends at public universities were able to work their way through college earning minimum wage.

Fast-forward, that private school now costs $80K all-in. Very few families with four children could pay for it "comfortably" no matter how hard the kids worked during summers.

That is what people are angry about.

Once upon a time, private college was not expensive. Everyone knows that. I'm not arguing that college costs are reasonable now, I'm saying that the posters complaining about being in a "donut hole" because they cannot comfortably pay for the most expensive option are not adding anything to the discussion. The nature of an option being the most expensive is that . . . it's expensive and everyone can't afford it! And unless you're very rich, it's going to sting to write that check. If you can still afford it, just "uncomfortably"; if you can still handle tuition, just not "reasonably" - that's not sympathetic, and it's not a donut hole. And there are literally thousands of other options at lower price points. But they've convinced themselves they're uniquely challenged because the best of the best isn't a given for their kid.

If you want to talk about spiraling tuition costs, let's talk about the tax breaks that were funded by gutting state budgets for higher ed. It's not a donut hole discussion it's a political discussion. But the same people moaning that they're stuck in a donut hole are voting for the "drown it in a bathtub" people, and can't tell they did it to themselves.

Right, but again: Most everyone COULD afford the EXACT SAME THING a generation or two ago, with a little effort.

It hurts to tell a super high-performer that he can't even apply to elite schools because you can't pay for them. Is it a tragedy? No. But when you have a MEMORY of those schools being in fact, affordable when you were his age, it hurts.

That's it.

P.S. I agree re: gutting state budgets for higher ed.

No, it's not true that everyone could afford it a generation ago. Sorry, but you were in a bubble if you thought so.

+1 I was a first gen student but my dad was an executive with a good UMC salary. Mom was a SAHM until my sister started HS and then she went to work as a secretary with her salary going to college expenses. Sister and I were both accepted to expensive (for the time) OOS public and private schools but my parents did not think it was at all worth it to pay for those vs. our in-state college options. So, that's where we went. And we've had good lives, gone to grad school (also public Us), happy in our careers. My dad ended up getting laid off when I was in college and never got another professional position. I'm really thankful he and my mom did not overextend to pay for the expensive school I'd have liked to go to. Instead they saved well for retirement and we've never had to worry about them financially.

"Didn't think it was worth it" is not the same as "could not afford to pay for it."

I don't know what year you graduated from high school, but many of my friends in the class of '80 "did not think it was worth it" to pay for expensive ($8K/year) colleges, either, so they went to State Flagship, which cost about $1,000/year at the time. Had they chosen, they could have gone to NESCAC School that Cost $8K by taking out a few thousand each year in loans and working a summer job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who do not qualify for financial aid, but whose real economic situation means they can't afford expensive colleges even if their kids are admitted. They are the families whose kids turn down Carnegie Mellon and take the merit award at Pitt.

But can’t they/don’t they take out loans to pay the tuition?

A family earning around 250k is not going to take out loans to cover the 50k a year difference in cost between publics and privates for multiple kids unless they are utterly terrible with money

What about student loans? Kids can payoff later? Why won’t donut hole families go for that option? Each kid takes out 50-60k loan per year to cover the cost of college?

Because Carnegie Mellon isn’t worth it. Lol.

Look at the average salaries and prestige of the universities, I think the jokes on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Midwest in the 80s and 90s. My dad was a partner at a mid sized law firm and did very well and my mom was a headmistress at a private school who also had a very high salary. My brother, sister and I went to Catholic schools and private single sex high schools. My dad was absolutely shocked when we didn't qualify for financial aid. My parents and school steered us to Catholic colleges where we would get lots of scholarships making their school look good, because we were high ACT and SAT scorers and the state school. My brother's school did have him apply to more "top colleges" but I did not apply to any schools like that. Maybe a few kids in my class went to schools like Notre Dame, Columbia, NYC, U of Chicago or small liberal art schools like Reed, Rice, etc. My dad and mom were from a working class mindset. They had zero debt, had paid off their mortgage, paid for their cars, etc. But they did not save or have a 529. My brother asked in HS if he had a college fund like his frieds at his prep school and they laughed. My dad honestly thought we would get work study and be able to get a good job in the summer, like he and my mom did (union jobs) that would pay for the school year.

My parents grew up very working class. When you are 18, you are on your own. My parents claimed me on their taxes so I got absolutely zero financial aid. But they didn't help me out because they thought I should be able to support myself on the minimal loans I took out (like $1500 a semester) and measely scholarship (it covered my tuition, but not books or housing). I worked 3 jobs in college and it was horrible. I was always worried about money, always tired, always hungry. I was food insecure. Meanwhile my dad was making $500K a year in the 90s and my mom was making $90K. My parents are not flashy and didn't owe me anything, but I sure as hell didn't want my kids to experience what I did. Imagine being 18, the daughter of white collar jobs, and not really understanding rent, food, utiliities for a summer house when your sorority house is closed. I had super sketchy jobs: at a collection agency, as a personal assistant, as a bartender and waitress. That is what I could get.

My parents could not understand why I was in a sorority (it was literally $1500 a semester versus $7K a semester for the dorms and included food and parking). My parents think I'm hella bougie. I can't even tell you the horrible things I dealt with in college at my part-time jobs.

I did get a full scholarship to grad school because I worked my ass off in college and started a small business when most people were having fun and out drinking. But I was also very dependent on boyfriends in an unhealthy way and exposed to some really sketchy situations that as a parent I would never want my daughter or son to be in.

My parents judge me and my DH because we send our kids to public schools. We are both feds and we wanted to save for college. VA colleges are so competitive and I'm not sure if our kids have the test scores for them. I did go to an Ivy for grad school and I saw the advantages I have over others with my alumni network and networking. I still have resentment towards my dad who was confident I could find a job keeping a resource binder in the dorm that would magically pay my room and board or slinging food at the cafeteria that would miraculously pay $35K in tuition.

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make at all, other than perhaps you had very unreasonable parents. Obviously with their income in that time period they easily could have paid for any college directly out of pockets and didn’t need to save for college. They simply chose not to, so you’re adding nothing to the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please explain, because it sounds like people with nice resources feeling entitled to more than they can afford.

No. It is a family that won’t qualify for FA but that doesn’t have the resources to reasonably handle tuition at the priciest/most elite colleges. I don’t know about families feeling entitled, but from the colleges’ standpoint it is a real problem that they are concerned about. They don’t want their student populations to come from two stratified socioeconomic groups.

This most closely describes the issue in an unbiased way. While I don’t expect massive FA, we also can’t comfortably pay for expensive private college. The colleges take into account all assets, which is great. No one should get to hide their wealth in a boat purchase. At the same time, we can’t liquidate our retirement savings. We would have to pay penalties. The government has penalties to discourage using your retirement money for non-retirement. So, we find ourselves in a spot where savings that we can’t use without expensive penalties is used to indicate we have “too much” money.

Meanwhile, our cash flow is not high, so it’s hard to swing the full cost.

Before people call me a whiner or tell me how lucky I am, I know I am lucky. I’m not complaining. We could empty our retirement accounts, but it would then lead us into poverty and that doesn’t help society or ourselves.

Retirement accounts aren't figured into financial aid assessments. Some CSS profiles do ask--but they mainly are looking to see that you haven't hidden a ton of extra assets there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is this describes a bunch of different families. And their situations may be sympathetic or not depending on your viewpoint.

Some people windup in the donut hole because they have more kids. If you have one or two kids, it's easier to sacrifice to get those kids through school than if you have three or four. People with more kids also struggle to save as much for college and feel frustrated when schools won't make up the difference. Personal bias here: I have little sympathy for these parents because I don't understand how you keep having kids without considering how you will pay for their college. But I have a lot of sympathy for these kids because it puts them in a really crappy situation where their existence is itself the thing keeping them from going to a school they got into but can't afford. Parents who have 3+ kids and then complain about how much college costs makes me angry.

But one I have more sympathy for is when one or both parents own a business and financial aid expects them to be willing to borrow against or liquidate business assets in order to pay for school. That seems like such a terrible choice. I know people who have done it and respect how much they are willing to put on the line for their kids education, but I'm not sure if I'd be able to make the same choice. That's a really tough one.

Another one is people who had kids late and are nearing retirement, and get caught two ways. First, they don't save as much for college because they are also saving for retirement (sometimes they are also caring for elderly parents and it's a squeeze). Second, they may have more liquid assets specifically because they are looking to retire soon, and financial aid will lay claim to those. I feel bad for these folks because often being late to parenting is not a choice. However, as someone who had kids late, I also just assumed that meant I'd have to work a little longer to get my kid through school. So again, this is something you can anticipate and should be able to if having kids late because you are old enough to understand how this works.

I also think people who come from modest backgrounds and who went to schools on scholarships sometimes don't understand how to save for college and then are surprised when their income pushes them into the "no aid" position. I have sympathy for this one because it's a knowledge gap -- their parents didn't save for college either and they just didn't know better. Though I do think if you are going to have kids you have to educate yourself. This was my DH and I had to work on him because he was convinced our kid would just qualify for aid. Now he gets that even though we aren't wealthy, we have more resource than our parents and we have to dedicate some of them to college savings if we want to ensure our kid can go to school. If I hadn't worked on him, though, we'd have zero saved.

There are probably others I'm unaware of. But these are the ones I hear the most. I think it's hardest for people who are outliers in their school or social community in terms of money. If everyone else you know can afford to pay out of pocket, and you can't because of the number of kids or your age, you might feel like it's unfair. And likewise, if everyone you know qualifies for aid because you are in a lower-income community, and you don't because you run a business with assets and therefore are actually in a higher bracket, it could feel unfair.

But usually it's not unfair. The actual unfair thing is that money is such a barrier to higher education in general in this country and having kids pretty much requires you to save for college, while also saving for retirement, while also paying your health insurance premiums. And yet we still have fairly high taxes! It's hard, but if it's "unfair" it's unfair to everyone except the very rich who inherited their wealth. And that's by design.

Even by DCUM standards this is an incredibly judgmental post. Congratulations! You’ve outdone us all.

Especially impressive is feeling sorry for old moms like her but not fertile people, who she is jealous of. Cool!

Yea that was my fave as well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:new poster here

Wow. I thought we were a "donut hole" family but I guess not.

What is a step below "donut hole" called? We make too much to qualify for aid, but paying for an expensive school would involve far more than "liquidating assets." It would be more like taking on a second full time job, skipping at least one meal a day, absolutely zero entertainment budget (not even cable tv or netflix) etc.

Well, there is this thing that you had 18 years to save for college. Which is what most people do.

You're assuming stagnant incomes. We have a HHI of about 225k and one in 7th and one in 8th. Three hears ago HHI was 150k. When the kids start college it will be about 250k if we continue on the same track. 160k a year in tuition is both not possible and not a number that we ever could have saved for on our incomes.

You're forgetting compounding. And there are many, many alternatives that don't cost $80,000 per year.

This who thread is about private schools, which all cost around 80k a year. We saved what we could and are now putting 2k per kid per month into 529s, but we still won't approach the cost of the privates that would be worth paying for.

You will also have the time that they are in college to pay as well. So you really have 9 more years to save, and for the savings to grow. And, your income will likely increase. Your kids may be eligible for merit aid at some places as well.

We were at about 80K annual when the kids were little and about $140K annual now (they are 10th and 12th). We'll have saved about 150K for them. Kid 1 is competitive for top tier schools that should give us aid tp make the cost $40/45k per year (hopefully). Could be 50/55K if our house value gets factored in (values have jumped in our hood). She also is attracting a lot of merit aid at mid tier schools. If you all make about $100k more than we do, 80k per seems doable, no? If you are saving 4k/mo, that is about 50k/year. That will compound. You may have some other savings, take a low loan amount, get help from a relative or get merit aid or go in state. You have options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically a family that makes more than what qualifies for need-based aid but not enough *income* to pay tuition out of pocket without it having a huge impact on their lifestyle. Usually they don’t want to liquidate assets to make up the gap.

Right, because it makes no sense to sell your house to send a kid to Harvard undergrad, when a mid-rank college is giving your kid a full ride merit scholarship.

If it’s so obvious what they should choose, why are they so mad about choosing it?

They are angry that college tuition has increased at a pace in extreme excess of inflation. They are angry that the school that cost $8K in 1980 costs $80K today, instead of $30K (which is what it would cost had tuition increases kept pace with rather than exceeded inflation).

They want the best education possible for their kids because relative to their generation, their kids' generation is more likely to be shut out of purchasing a decent house, affording healthcare, having children, as the costs of those things have skyrocketed relative to everything else. They want their kids to be ok and it's much much harder to position the kids now for that than it was a generation or two ago.

That's why.

This is a good explanation for how I feel as a likely donut hole family. I understand that private colleges are selling a product that I (or really, my DD) are not simply entitled to take part in because of her achievements - there's a cost, and they'll look at all our means to cover that cost, which includes remortgaging to get home equity or significantly withdrawing from retirement accounts. And it sucks, because setting ourselves up poorly for retirement will be a greater burden on her. And it double sucks because she likely has fewer options than I did, growing up with lower income and really high stats (and lots of aid), which is the last thing I expected. And it triple sucks because we have only one child because of these significant expenses of child care, housing, college and retirement (and no family money).

DD will be fine, because despite all that we will have options and she will be able to go to college. But I'm still gobsmacked by the cost.

Yeah, I hear you. We will likely get some aid for one kid (under 150K - will get need at top tier and merit at mid), but #2 will not do as well on the testing w/ adhd, so may not be as competitive and further limited by finances. We'll see. And, #1 may get into a few places that become a financial stretch b/c of our home value. Can't help that my house value went up. I actually wish it hadn't -- too many Cap Hill lawyers moving in! (Apologies, Cap Hill lawyers, but en masse, it's too much).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:new poster here

Wow. I thought we were a "donut hole" family but I guess not.

What is a step below "donut hole" called? We make too much to qualify for aid, but paying for an expensive school would involve far more than "liquidating assets." It would be more like taking on a second full time job, skipping at least one meal a day, absolutely zero entertainment budget (not even cable tv or netflix) etc.

Well, there is this thing that you had 18 years to save for college. Which is what most people do.

You're assuming stagnant incomes. We have a HHI of about 225k and one in 7th and one in 8th. Three hears ago HHI was 150k. When the kids start college it will be about 250k if we continue on the same track. 160k a year in tuition is both not possible and not a number that we ever could have saved for on our incomes.

You're forgetting compounding. And there are many, many alternatives that don't cost $80,000 per year.

This who thread is about private schools, which all cost around 80k a year. We saved what we could and are now putting 2k per kid per month into 529s, but we still won't approach the cost of the privates that would be worth paying for.

You will also have the time that they are in college to pay as well. So you really have 9 more years to save, and for the savings to grow. And, your income will likely increase. Your kids may be eligible for merit aid at some places as well.

We were at about 80K annual when the kids were little and about $140K annual now (they are 10th and 12th). We'll have saved about 150K for them. Kid 1 is competitive for top tier schools that should give us aid tp make the cost $40/45k per year (hopefully). Could be 50/55K if our house value gets factored in (values have jumped in our hood). She also is attracting a lot of merit aid at mid tier schools. If you all make about $100k more than we do, 80k per seems doable, no? If you are saving 4k/mo, that is about 50k/year. That will compound. You may have some other savings, take a low loan amount, get help from a relative or get merit aid or go in state. You have options.

Your kid is a sophomore and therefore not "attracting" anything from potential schools.

Also, only top schools will give you grants, and those are an admissions crapshoot.

[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:Could someone please explain, because it sounds like people with nice resources feeling entitled to more than they can afford.

No. It is a family that won’t qualify for FA but that doesn’t have the resources to reasonably handle tuition at the priciest/most elite colleges. I don’t know about families feeling entitled, but from the colleges’ standpoint it is a real problem that they are concerned about. They don’t want their student populations to come from two stratified socioeconomic groups.

This most closely describes the issue in an unbiased way. While I don’t expect massive FA, we also can’t comfortably pay for expensive private college. The colleges take into account all assets, which is great. No one should get to hide their wealth in a boat purchase. At the same time, we can’t liquidate our retirement savings. We would have to pay penalties. The government has penalties to discourage using your retirement money for non-retirement. So, we find ourselves in a spot where savings that we can’t use without expensive penalties is used to indicate we have “too much” money.

Meanwhile, our cash flow is not high, so it’s hard to swing the full cost.

Before people call me a whiner or tell me how lucky I am, I know I am lucky. I’m not complaining. We could empty our retirement accounts, but it would then lead us into poverty and that doesn’t help society or ourselves.

I don't know anyone who thinks paying for "expensive private college" is comfortable. This is the problem with donut hole discussions - of course it's expensive! It's expensive for everyone! If you think you're hard done by because you can't just instruct your household manager to write a check and forget about it moments later, you have skewed expectations in life. "Not outrageously wealthy" is not a protected class.

I'm 60 years old and graduated from a NESCAC school in 1983. The year I started, it cost about $8K for tuition, room, and board. I paid about $2000-$2500 of that from summer and part-time job (during the school year) earnings and my parents paid the rest. They did the same for my three siblings. It was not "comfortable" meaning "cushy," but it was completely doable. Some of my friends at similar schools and at Ivy League schools needed loans, and they took them out (usually around $6K-$8K total) and paid them off fairly quickly. My friends at public universities were able to work their way through college earning minimum wage.

Fast-forward, that private school now costs $80K all-in. Very few families with four children could pay for it "comfortably" no matter how hard the kids worked during summers.

That is what people are angry about.

Once upon a time, private college was not expensive. Everyone knows that. I'm not arguing that college costs are reasonable now, I'm saying that the posters complaining about being in a "donut hole" because they cannot comfortably pay for the most expensive option are not adding anything to the discussion. The nature of an option being the most expensive is that . . . it's expensive and everyone can't afford it! And unless you're very rich, it's going to sting to write that check. If you can still afford it, just "uncomfortably"; if you can still handle tuition, just not "reasonably" - that's not sympathetic, and it's not a donut hole. And there are literally thousands of other options at lower price points. But they've convinced themselves they're uniquely challenged because the best of the best isn't a given for their kid.

If you want to talk about spiraling tuition costs, let's talk about the tax breaks that were funded by gutting state budgets for higher ed. It's not a donut hole discussion it's a political discussion. But the same people moaning that they're stuck in a donut hole are voting for the "drown it in a bathtub" people, and can't tell they did it to themselves.

Right, but again: Most everyone COULD afford the EXACT SAME THING a generation or two ago, with a little effort.

It hurts to tell a super high-performer that he can't even apply to elite schools because you can't pay for them. Is it a tragedy? No. But when you have a MEMORY of those schools being in fact, affordable when you were his age, it hurts.

That's it.

P.S. I agree re: gutting state budgets for higher ed.

No, it's not true that everyone could afford it a generation ago. Sorry, but you were in a bubble if you thought so.

A generation ago, schools toped out in the 30k range. With federal loans and modest parental contribution (or flat out grants if you are talking about the elite schools), everyone could afford them

No. Absolutely false. Maybe everyone at your high school could afford them, but the idea that everyone in America could afford to send their kids to college AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY is so blind to reality as to be a joke.

The elite private schools met full need a generation ago.

...with loans. Not grants. Loans.

Student loans actually covered costs 40 years ago, and the total over four years was less $ than a college graduate's salary at her first job.

Now, Parent Plus loans would be required, as the student loans (limited to just over $25K over four years) don't begin to touch the cost of college.

40 years ago?! You mean when my parents were in college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please explain, because it sounds like people with nice resources feeling entitled to more than they can afford.

No. It is a family that won’t qualify for FA but that doesn’t have the resources to reasonably handle tuition at the priciest/most elite colleges. I don’t know about families feeling entitled, but from the colleges’ standpoint it is a real problem that they are concerned about. They don’t want their student populations to come from two stratified socioeconomic groups.

This most closely describes the issue in an unbiased way. While I don’t expect massive FA, we also can’t comfortably pay for expensive private college. The colleges take into account all assets, which is great. No one should get to hide their wealth in a boat purchase. At the same time, we can’t liquidate our retirement savings. We would have to pay penalties. The government has penalties to discourage using your retirement money for non-retirement. So, we find ourselves in a spot where savings that we can’t use without expensive penalties is used to indicate we have “too much” money.

Meanwhile, our cash flow is not high, so it’s hard to swing the full cost.

Before people call me a whiner or tell me how lucky I am, I know I am lucky. I’m not complaining. We could empty our retirement accounts, but it would then lead us into poverty and that doesn’t help society or ourselves.

Retirement accounts aren't figured into financial aid assessments. Some CSS profiles do ask--but they mainly are looking to see that you haven't hidden a ton of extra assets there.

CSS schools expect you to mortgage everything, including retirement.