Top Colleges Are Cheaper Than You Think (Unless You’re Rich)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there seriously people here making 200k+ and bitching about not getting need based aid? Do you even listen to yourselves?

not sure, but how about $130K income and a 68K per year price tag?

At the Ivies, a family with $130k income and $200K in home equity and about $10k in the checking account would receive about $40k in grants/financial aid/discounts. No loans in the financial aid package, but an expectation for the student to do work-study for books and pocket money. The actual price would be about $30k +/- depending on the school. UVA in-state would be about the same cost because they would provide no grants and include student loans as financial aid. UMd in-state would be a couple thousand less and no financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Forgot to add their basic premise:

Middle-class families pay a higher price, but nothing like the list price. Only affluent families pay something close to the list price. It’s true that many of these families don’t think of themselves as affluent. But they are – part of roughly the country’s richest 10 percent, with an annual income of at least $175,000 and a net worth of a half-million dollars or more. For them, a college bill approaching $70,000 can be decidedly unpleasant, yet it doesn’t reorder their lives.

How does a bill of over 50% of your take home pay not "reorder" your life? Especially when you can't even afford a 3 br in this city on $175k?

I guess they expect you to spend your "net worth."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there seriously people here making 200k+ and bitching about not getting need based aid? Do you even listen to yourselves?

not sure, but how about $130K income and a 68K per year price tag?

At the Ivies, a family with $130k income and $200K in home equity and about $10k in the checking account would receive about $40k in grants/financial aid/discounts. No loans in the financial aid package, but an expectation for the student to do work-study for books and pocket money. The actual price would be about $30k +/- depending on the school. UVA in-state would be about the same cost because they would provide no grants and include student loans as financial aid. UMd in-state would be a couple thousand less and no financial aid.

Wow. That's incredible. Kind of a moot point for us since DC (like probably 99% of other students) isn't going to an Ivy, but thanks for that info.

[Anonymous]

^ Interesting fact. Only .4 percent (four tenths of one percent) of college students attend an Ivy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Interesting fact. Only .4 percent (four tenths of one percent) of college students attend an Ivy

source: https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/09/06/20-surprising-higher-education-facts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're a two earner house, each making about 100K in the DC area. Modest suburban house, two cars purchased used. Thrifty but not penny pinching lifestyle. From a paying for college perspective, it almost seems like one of us should quit our job and be a stay at home parent. Am I missing something?

Respectfully, yes. You are in the top 5% of US earners.

https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Household-Income

I know you don't feel rich, but you are certainly affluent compared to the other applicants. These are the raw facts colleges have to deal with. 95% of their prospects earn less than you, and half earn less than 1/4. Yes it sucks but please tell me how else it could possibly be?

The colleges could charge of all us less. They could charge less to the poor and to the rich. I'd be happy if the poor paid nothing if I could pay only $30k/year. We could all win if colleges lowered tuition, and went back to their core mission, like they did in the 60s.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there seriously people here making 200k+ and bitching about not getting need based aid? Do you even listen to yourselves?

I have been trying to say this, but in a kinder way. It's a sensitive issue. I agree with your point but your method is questionable and won't convince anyone. It's hard when you realize you haven't planned properly to give your kid something they really want. It's painful. A little sympathy and understanding is called for.

Are you reading what people are writing?

People are planning and saving. And it is still inaccessible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there seriously people here making 200k+ and bitching about not getting need based aid? Do you even listen to yourselves?

I have been trying to say this, but in a kinder way. It's a sensitive issue. I agree with your point but your method is questionable and won't convince anyone. It's hard when you realize you haven't planned properly to give your kid something they really want. It's painful. A little sympathy and understanding is called for.

Are you reading what people are writing?

People are planning and saving. And it is still inaccessible.

So, send your kid to a good state school. Really how is that even close to a bad thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there seriously people here making 200k+ and bitching about not getting need based aid? Do you even listen to yourselves?

I have been trying to say this, but in a kinder way. It's a sensitive issue. I agree with your point but your method is questionable and won't convince anyone. It's hard when you realize you haven't planned properly to give your kid something they really want. It's painful. A little sympathy and understanding is called for.

Are you reading what people are writing?

People are planning and saving. And it is still inaccessible.

Tell you what, let's trade paychecks. I'll still live on $40k and have $160k to send my kid to school. You can get a Pell grant. Win/Win

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Interesting fact. Only .4 percent (four tenths of one percent) of college students attend an Ivy

source: https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/09/06/20-surprising-higher-education-facts

Sure, the Ivies, Stanford, and MIT are the wealthiest and most generous with financial. But, all the better private colleges (for example, Amherst, Barnard, Bowdoin, Carleton, Claremont colleges, Colby, Conn College, Duke, Emory, Georgetown, Macalaster, Oberlin, Smith, Swarthmore, Tufts, Wash U, Wesleyan, Wiliams) offer full-need financial aid packages that don't "gap" (i.e. the aid packages meet all the demonstrated financial need) and only include federal guaranteed student loans (no private or parent loans). A family earning $130k will only pay a fraction of the cost of attendance at these schools, nowhere near the sticker price. For the best students, finances are a weighty consideration, but they will find many great college options that are affordable. The majority of students at the top schools receive very large financial aid packages.

The picture only gets really ugly when you start to look at regional private colleges. They don't have resources to provide full-need aid and many devote a significant portion of their aid to "merit" scholarships to attract students who don't need the money. These colleges have a disappearing business model as they have almost no advantages over non-flagship in-state public options.

[Anonymous]

The issue for me isn't whether one can pay for an elite private college out of a 200 or 300k income, but whether the college is actually worth the investment.

The second issue is why the college tuitions have so rapidly escalated far beyond inflation rates for the same time period. There is something seriously wrong with the financial model of higher education in today's world that that I resent spending a fortune into a system that is effectively broken.

I went to Ivy schools, undergrad and grad. I had an elite education. It was a great experience. But I'm not sure if it was that much better of an experience than, say, in-state at UVA or a good flagship, or at a private LAC or "lesser" college with a big merit package. Because I'm 20 years out I can look around my fellow graduates and see where they are in life, and compare it to my other friends and coworkers. Believe me when I say plenty of Ivy grads go on to have humble lives. And plenty of state school grads go on to have very successful lives.

Yes, college isn't all about the money. In theory. But we're now in a world when it actually is increasingly about the money, the shockingly high tuition for both undergrad and graduate schools. When you spend that 70+ a year for your kid, it's a gamble that it will pay off over going to UVA or College Park. Statistically speaking, odds are that your child will end up in a similar position in life regardless of whether he/she went to Penn or UVA. This is shown over and over again by multiple studies. The kids who do benefit from a fancy Ivy are mainly two distinct groups: the underrepresented minorities/poor students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and a small coterie of students who get recruited by premier banking/consulting firms. But if you're not one of the two, it really is not a long term advantage to go to a fancy private college over a solid cheaper alternative.

So why not take the cheaper route, take the 30-40k differential (per year) and pump that into a long term savings account for the kid to help out with a down on his/her first property, or even to start to build up a retirement fund. That will be far, far, far more valuable in the long run than a degree from Penn over UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Interesting fact. Only .4 percent (four tenths of one percent) of college students attend an Ivy

source: https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/09/06/20-surprising-higher-education-facts

Sure, the Ivies, Stanford, and MIT are the wealthiest and most generous with financial. But, all the better private colleges (for example, Amherst, Barnard, Bowdoin, Carleton, Claremont colleges, Colby, Conn College, Duke, Emory, Georgetown, Macalaster, Oberlin, Smith, Swarthmore, Tufts, Wash U, Wesleyan, Wiliams) offer full-need financial aid packages that don't "gap" (i.e. the aid packages meet all the demonstrated financial need) and only include federal guaranteed student loans (no private or parent loans). A family earning $130k will only pay a fraction of the cost of attendance at these schools, nowhere near the sticker price. For the best students, finances are a weighty consideration, but they will find many great college options that are affordable. The majority of students at the top schools receive very large financial aid packages.

The picture only gets really ugly when you start to look at regional private colleges. They don't have resources to provide full-need aid and many devote a significant portion of their aid to "merit" scholarships to attract students who don't need the money. These colleges have a disappearing business model as they have almost no advantages over non-flagship in-state public options.

I think thgis was discussed above. They likely will look at your home equity and even IRA, so Ithis comment is highly, misleading. Also, their "demonstrated financial need" is what they say your need is, and it may be (will likely be) wildly different from what you (reasonably) think your need is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue for me isn't whether one can pay for an elite private college out of a 200 or 300k income, but whether the college is actually worth the investment.

The second issue is why the college tuitions have so rapidly escalated far beyond inflation rates for the same time period. There is something seriously wrong with the financial model of higher education in today's world that that I resent spending a fortune into a system that is effectively broken.

I went to Ivy schools, undergrad and grad. I had an elite education. It was a great experience. But I'm not sure if it was that much better of an experience than, say, in-state at UVA or a good flagship, or at a private LAC or "lesser" college with a big merit package. Because I'm 20 years out I can look around my fellow graduates and see where they are in life, and compare it to my other friends and coworkers. Believe me when I say plenty of Ivy grads go on to have humble lives. And plenty of state school grads go on to have very successful lives.

Yes, college isn't all about the money. In theory. But we're now in a world when it actually is increasingly about the money, the shockingly high tuition for both undergrad and graduate schools. When you spend that 70+ a year for your kid, it's a gamble that it will pay off over going to UVA or College Park. Statistically speaking, odds are that your child will end up in a similar position in life regardless of whether he/she went to Penn or UVA. This is shown over and over again by multiple studies. The kids who do benefit from a fancy Ivy are mainly two distinct groups: the underrepresented minorities/poor students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and a small coterie of students who get recruited by premier banking/consulting firms. But if you're not one of the two, it really is not a long term advantage to go to a fancy private college over a solid cheaper alternative.

So why not take the cheaper route, take the 30-40k differential (per year) and pump that into a long term savings account for the kid to help out with a down on his/her first property, or even to start to build up a retirement fund. That will be far, far, far more valuable in the long run than a degree from Penn over UVA.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there seriously people here making 200k+ and bitching about not getting need based aid? Do you even listen to yourselves?

I have been trying to say this, but in a kinder way. It's a sensitive issue. I agree with your point but your method is questionable and won't convince anyone. It's hard when you realize you haven't planned properly to give your kid something they really want. It's painful. A little sympathy and understanding is called for.

Are you reading what people are writing?

People are planning and saving. And it is still inaccessible.

So, send your kid to a good state school. Really how is that even close to a bad thing?

Agreed, that is what people are doing (and that is why the flagship schools are increasingly difficult to get into), but that's not the point of this thread.

Read the OP - the assertion is that elite schools are accessible to all. They are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there seriously people here making 200k+ and bitching about not getting need based aid? Do you even listen to yourselves?

I have been trying to say this, but in a kinder way. It's a sensitive issue. I agree with your point but your method is questionable and won't convince anyone. It's hard when you realize you haven't planned properly to give your kid something they really want. It's painful. A little sympathy and understanding is called for.

Are you reading what people are writing?

People are planning and saving. And it is still inaccessible.

Tell you what, let's trade paychecks. I'll still live on $40k and have $160k to send my kid to school. You can get a Pell grant. Win/Win

You are missing the point.

I acknowledge that I am affluent with a HHI of $200K. That is not in dispute.

What is in dispute is the proposition that I can access education at an elite school for my kid, so long as I can handle that it will be "decidedly unpleasant" for my family. Which is simply not the case. It is not a matter of "decidedly unpleasant"; it is a matter of impossible.

I would be very happy to pay say, $40K for that education and for you to pay nothing.