Brown eliminates tuition for families up to $125K and removes home equity in the FA equation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home equity should be included over $400-500k. If a family has a million dollar house it should be included.

I disagree - no one should have to sell their house or take out a second mortgage (and risk losing their home) to pay for a child's college. Further, just because a house is owned and paid for doesn't mean that the persons living in the house haven't fallen on harder times and/or make less than they did when they bought the house - AND with home prices and "equity" increasing because of the housing shortage - it's really speculative whether that equity will materialize should the house be sold one day - and then what do you do with a second mortgage that can't be paid off by the sale of the house?

Good for Brown - my kid has no interest and/or couldn't get in - but it's a good first step. I personally wish that the Ivies would increase enrollment by 25-50% for those who wish to go to an Ivy - they know that there are enough smart/interesting kids to fill the seats - and they have the endowments to expand. They are just creating artificial scarcity for the sake of exclusivity.

If you make a choice to spend one mil,ion on a house vs 600k then yes. A reasonably priced house, no. But when you overspend and choose not to save you should not be rewarded vs another family who saved with the same income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home equity should be included over $400-500k. If a family has a million dollar house it should be included.

i assume you are white and wealthy/umc professional. A significant amount of people inherit homes form their parents and keep them, live in them and these properties have appreciated insanely, ,my mother's house that i inherited this summer appreciated almost a million from when she bought it in the 70s, i could very well have moved in but its in the suburbs and i don't like that area of potomac. our next door neighbors have inherited their parents house which has also appreciated quite bit and they are moving in b/c its a great property with a lot of close by amenities, they wouldn't be able to afford that home on their own. Forcing black homeowners to sell their inherited property in DC to white owners by punishing them for owning something valuable that they inherited is ALL kinds of screwed up. Its amusing to me how suddenly there is a move towards discounting any sorts of minor wealth accumulation when BIPOC have finally begun accruing some wealth.

Then you sell that house and use the money for college. I will not inherit anything. We saved.

[Anonymous]

Here’s what $600k might get you in SF.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1391-Revere-Ave-94124/home/1990119

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taxing endowments to provide student aid seems like a great idea

Actually, that may be the stupidest idea in the history of higher education.

[Anonymous]

Brown’s endowment grew 51% to 6.9B last year, according to the article. They tied this decision to that growth.

The home value exclusion will disproportionately help middle/moderate-income families, who make up the donut-hole at many top colleges. And the aid these families receive will not come at the expense of other families since Brown is need-blind/meet-full-need. It will expand the percentage of students receiving aid and the amount of aid some students receive.

[Anonymous]

There are many people living in total poverty in SE and NE DC who have inherited properties which are now worth >$500K thanks to the real estate uptick.
This is for kids like this.
Their parents don't work so there is zero money for college, especially an expensive place like Brown but they're penalized in college aid because of the worth of the house. They can't sell the house or they'd be homeless.
This will level the playing field for these kids.
I work as a caseworker in DC. I can think of hundreds of kids who are in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brown’s endowment grew 51% to 6.9B last year, according to the article. They tied this decision to that growth.

The home value exclusion will disproportionately help middle/moderate-income families, who make up the donut-hole at many top colleges. And the aid these families receive will not come at the expense of other families since Brown is need-blind/meet-full-need. It will expand the percentage of students receiving aid and the amount of aid some students receive.

NO, it helps the poor who happen to live in expensive houses. Those making >125K won't receive a whole lot of aid so this won't make a difference. This helps those making under $125K (generally quite a bit under) who are living in $750K+ dilapidated row houses in DC, San Franciso, NY, Chicago, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown’s endowment grew 51% to 6.9B last year, according to the article. They tied this decision to that growth.

The home value exclusion will disproportionately help middle/moderate-income families, who make up the donut-hole at many top colleges. And the aid these families receive will not come at the expense of other families since Brown is need-blind/meet-full-need. It will expand the percentage of students receiving aid and the amount of aid some students receive.

NO, it helps the poor who happen to live in expensive houses. Those making >125K won't receive a whole lot of aid so this won't make a difference. This helps those making under $125K (generally quite a bit under) who are living in $750K+ dilapidated row houses in DC, San Franciso, NY, Chicago, etc.

That’s not what Brown’s president thinks:

Eliminating home equity in calculations, Paxson said, will likely have its greatest impact on moderate-income students — which Dean of Admission Logan Powell previously defined as students who, with the consideration of home equity and other assets, currently have an expected parental contribution, but also receive financial aid. Earlier this month, The Herald reported that the University attracts, accepts and enrolls fewer students from middle- and moderate- income brackets than any other income bracket.

But the impact of eliminating home equity from calculating a family’s assets, Paxson added, will likely impact a number of families across the income spectrum that already receive aid. And it may also open up aid to families currently not receiving it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home equity should be included over $400-500k. If a family has a million dollar house it should be included.

I disagree - no one should have to sell their house or take out a second mortgage (and risk losing their home) to pay for a child's college. Further, just because a house is owned and paid for doesn't mean that the persons living in the house haven't fallen on harder times and/or make less than they did when they bought the house - AND with home prices and "equity" increasing because of the housing shortage - it's really speculative whether that equity will materialize should the house be sold one day - and then what do you do with a second mortgage that can't be paid off by the sale of the house?

Good for Brown - my kid has no interest and/or couldn't get in - but it's a good first step. I personally wish that the Ivies would increase enrollment by 25-50% for those who wish to go to an Ivy - they know that there are enough smart/interesting kids to fill the seats - and they have the endowments to expand. They are just creating artificial scarcity for the sake of exclusivity.

If you make a choice to spend one mil,ion on a house vs 600k then yes. A reasonably priced house, no. But when you overspend and choose not to save you should not be rewarded vs another family who saved with the same income.

Agreed...no one should be able to like in a mansion and collect financial aid! In terms of increasing enrollment, it is hard in terms of space on campus. There has to be more housing/dining halls/study spaces/class rooms/offices/parking. How many schools even have enough space to increase 50%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home equity should be included over $400-500k. If a family has a million dollar house it should be included.

I disagree - no one should have to sell their house or take out a second mortgage (and risk losing their home) to pay for a child's college. Further, just because a house is owned and paid for doesn't mean that the persons living in the house haven't fallen on harder times and/or make less than they did when they bought the house - AND with home prices and "equity" increasing because of the housing shortage - it's really speculative whether that equity will materialize should the house be sold one day - and then what do you do with a second mortgage that can't be paid off by the sale of the house?

Good for Brown - my kid has no interest and/or couldn't get in - but it's a good first step. I personally wish that the Ivies would increase enrollment by 25-50% for those who wish to go to an Ivy - they know that there are enough smart/interesting kids to fill the seats - and they have the endowments to expand. They are just creating artificial scarcity for the sake of exclusivity.

If you make a choice to spend one mil,ion on a house vs 600k then yes. A reasonably priced house, no. But when you overspend and choose not to save you should not be rewarded vs another family who saved with the same income.

Agreed...no one should be able to like in a mansion and collect financial aid! In terms of increasing enrollment, it is hard in terms of space on campus. There has to be more housing/dining halls/study spaces/class rooms/offices/parking. How many schools even have enough space to increase 50%?

Hilarious that you think million dollar home in this area is a mansion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home equity should be included over $400-500k. If a family has a million dollar house it should be included.

i assume you are white and wealthy/umc professional. A significant amount of people inherit homes form their parents and keep them, live in them and these properties have appreciated insanely, ,my mother's house that i inherited this summer appreciated almost a million from when she bought it in the 70s, i could very well have moved in but its in the suburbs and i don't like that area of potomac. our next door neighbors have inherited their parents house which has also appreciated quite bit and they are moving in b/c its a great property with a lot of close by amenities, they wouldn't be able to afford that home on their own. Forcing black homeowners to sell their inherited property in DC to white owners by punishing them for owning something valuable that they inherited is ALL kinds of screwed up. Its amusing to me how suddenly there is a move towards discounting any sorts of minor wealth accumulation when BIPOC have finally begun accruing some wealth.

I am UMC and white and I know no one who is UMC and white who live or keep the houses inherited from their parents. In the first place, many of us have parents who weren't UMC.

It seems much more common among poorer people to keep a family house inherited from a family member and it does help that those houses are often inexpensive housing (smaller towns for example) so there's not too much gained in selling them especially if there's a family member needing a home.

You're resorting to straw man arguments to add nothing of any value to this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home equity should be included over $400-500k. If a family has a million dollar house it should be included.

I disagree - no one should have to sell their house or take out a second mortgage (and risk losing their home) to pay for a child's college. Further, just because a house is owned and paid for doesn't mean that the persons living in the house haven't fallen on harder times and/or make less than they did when they bought the house - AND with home prices and "equity" increasing because of the housing shortage - it's really speculative whether that equity will materialize should the house be sold one day - and then what do you do with a second mortgage that can't be paid off by the sale of the house?

Good for Brown - my kid has no interest and/or couldn't get in - but it's a good first step. I personally wish that the Ivies would increase enrollment by 25-50% for those who wish to go to an Ivy - they know that there are enough smart/interesting kids to fill the seats - and they have the endowments to expand. They are just creating artificial scarcity for the sake of exclusivity.

If you make a choice to spend one mil,ion on a house vs 600k then yes. A reasonably priced house, no. But when you overspend and choose not to save you should not be rewarded vs another family who saved with the same income.

Agreed...no one should be able to like in a mansion and collect financial aid! In terms of increasing enrollment, it is hard in terms of space on campus. There has to be more housing/dining halls/study spaces/class rooms/offices/parking. How many schools even have enough space to increase 50%?

Most schools could increase enrollment but then it gets too large and the quality lessons. Sometimes bigger isn't better. There are plenty of slots at colleges. You don't need to go to an IVY to be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home equity should be included over $400-500k. If a family has a million dollar house it should be included.

i assume you are white and wealthy/umc professional. A significant amount of people inherit homes form their parents and keep them, live in them and these properties have appreciated insanely, ,my mother's house that i inherited this summer appreciated almost a million from when she bought it in the 70s, i could very well have moved in but its in the suburbs and i don't like that area of potomac. our next door neighbors have inherited their parents house which has also appreciated quite bit and they are moving in b/c its a great property with a lot of close by amenities, they wouldn't be able to afford that home on their own. Forcing black homeowners to sell their inherited property in DC to white owners by punishing them for owning something valuable that they inherited is ALL kinds of screwed up. Its amusing to me how suddenly there is a move towards discounting any sorts of minor wealth accumulation when BIPOC have finally begun accruing some wealth.

I am UMC and white and I know no one who is UMC and white who live or keep the houses inherited from their parents. In the first place, many of us have parents who weren't UMC.

It seems much more common among poorer people to keep a family house inherited from a family member and it does help that those houses are often inexpensive housing (smaller towns for example) so there's not too much gained in selling them especially if there's a family member needing a home.

You're resorting to straw man arguments to add nothing of any value to this thread.

This is la la land for UMC. Real MC and real UMC aren't buying million dollar houses and if they are they are way over spending which is why they cannot save and then they should take out loans vs. financial aid as they made the life style choice that college isn't a priority.

UMC don't like in million dollar houses. MC don't live in even $500K houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home equity should be included over $400-500k. If a family has a million dollar house it should be included.

I disagree - no one should have to sell their house or take out a second mortgage (and risk losing their home) to pay for a child's college. Further, just because a house is owned and paid for doesn't mean that the persons living in the house haven't fallen on harder times and/or make less than they did when they bought the house - AND with home prices and "equity" increasing because of the housing shortage - it's really speculative whether that equity will materialize should the house be sold one day - and then what do you do with a second mortgage that can't be paid off by the sale of the house?

Good for Brown - my kid has no interest and/or couldn't get in - but it's a good first step. I personally wish that the Ivies would increase enrollment by 25-50% for those who wish to go to an Ivy - they know that there are enough smart/interesting kids to fill the seats - and they have the endowments to expand. They are just creating artificial scarcity for the sake of exclusivity.

If you make a choice to spend one mil,ion on a house vs 600k then yes. A reasonably priced house, no. But when you overspend and choose not to save you should not be rewarded vs another family who saved with the same income.

Agreed...no one should be able to like in a mansion and collect financial aid! In terms of increasing enrollment, it is hard in terms of space on campus. There has to be more housing/dining halls/study spaces/class rooms/offices/parking. How many schools even have enough space to increase 50%?

Hilarious that you think million dollar home in this area is a mansion.

Life is about choices. There are homes in the area for $350-600K. You choose a million dollar house, then that is ok but don't expect others to fund your child's college.

[Anonymous]

We have very low income but 4M in assets (that we can't use for tuition, but it's in our name and we disclose it to the IRS).

I somehow doubt we'd still qualify, but does anyone know?