need-based aid vs. merit aid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You gotta be f'ing kidding me. Of course it's outrageous. Schools don't have to pay for lower SES kids, full pay parents do.

If you think that's outrageous, then send your child to the University of Phoenix or some other for-profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You gotta be f'ing kidding me. Of course it's outrageous. Schools don't have to pay for lower SES kids, full pay parents do.

If you think that's outrageous, then send your child to the University of Phoenix or some other for-profit.

You don't? Tell me why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not outrageous. Schools can engineer their costs and financial aid and the demographics of their student body any way they see fit. They clearly see some advantage in drawing students from a wider variety of SES backgrounds.

Your kid doesn't have a right to go there. It's a privilege. If you don't want to pay the asking price and you don't see an advantage, then go somewhere else. Kids in high SES have a ton of advantages. The absence of financial aid from a handful of schools doesn't even begin to level the playing field.

I agree with this, and I say this as someone who has a fairly high HHI (although perhaps not by DCUM standards). We will have an estimated family contribution of about $45k, which means DC will qualify for some financial aid at schools that guarantee to meet need.

But DH and I don't think we can really afford to pay $45k. We view $30k/year as more realistic for us. So we have set our sights on in-state publics for DC. DC is welcome to apply to other schools, but those schools will be not be considered unless they pony up merit aid to bring the cost very near $30k/year. If they don't, no problem--plenty of in-state options available. Our DC has had many advantages, and attending a state school will not do him any noticeable disservice.

But what would you do if your DC insists on attending 60k/year school (i.e., "dream school")?

We're in this boat now. Admitted to dream school with no aid and we can't pay full tuition. Look it sucks but if we can't afford it, we can't afford it. DD is screaming about taking out loans and I'm teaching her about budgeting for life. Housing, transportation, insurance, food, clothing, utilities, and entertainment. We're looking at starting salaries for her field-- taking out taxes and 401k. You know what-- she doesn't have enough money left over to pay her loans.

She's mopey and pissed off at us. But we can't afford it. She knew before applying that without aid she could not attend but she believed aid would come. It didn't and my heart breaks for her. But this is the reality of life.

So basically, she can't attend dream school because she can't pony up the extra 10k of tuition for another student whose parents didn't plan for college. And that becomes your problem. Charming.

I think need-based implies that some students' parents CAN'T afford to pay for college. There is value in making higher education available to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. And yes, that means the full-pay students subsidize the students receiving need-based aid.

Do you actually believe college should be reserved strictly for students whose parents can afford to pay the full rate?

[Anonymous]

I don't think the college should charge me more because I have always been a working mom while subsidizing my neighbor mom who chose to play tennis while I worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the college should charge me more because I have always been a working mom while subsidizing my neighbor mom who chose to play tennis while I worked.

No, they are charging you the same, you are just paying more than that tennis mom's kid.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that people who have children and happen to have more money should be the only ones "subsidizing" other people who have children, but who don't have enough money. That's supposedly why the state subsidizes the state schools---because all people in society benefit from a more educated citizenry---not just those with children. Having children in a responsible manner (saving and working and maybe even getting married to make a stronger economic union) should not be made into a disincentive. People should be encouraged to be responsible and those who are responsible should be encouraged to have children.

Tennis mom's kid may have to bear the burden of her irresponsibility by taking out loans that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy court. That's sad, but that's a problem that all of society must try to resolve (and not on the backs of those who happen to have kids in college at the same time as her kid).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not outrageous. Schools can engineer their costs and financial aid and the demographics of their student body any way they see fit. They clearly see some advantage in drawing students from a wider variety of SES backgrounds.

Your kid doesn't have a right to go there. It's a privilege. If you don't want to pay the asking price and you don't see an advantage, then go somewhere else. Kids in high SES have a ton of advantages. The absence of financial aid from a handful of schools doesn't even begin to level the playing field.

I agree with this, and I say this as someone who has a fairly high HHI (although perhaps not by DCUM standards). We will have an estimated family contribution of about $45k, which means DC will qualify for some financial aid at schools that guarantee to meet need.

But DH and I don't think we can really afford to pay $45k. We view $30k/year as more realistic for us. So we have set our sights on in-state publics for DC. DC is welcome to apply to other schools, but those schools will be not be considered unless they pony up merit aid to bring the cost very near $30k/year. If they don't, no problem--plenty of in-state options available. Our DC has had many advantages, and attending a state school will not do him any noticeable disservice.

But what would you do if your DC insists on attending 60k/year school (i.e., "dream school")?

We're in this boat now. Admitted to dream school with no aid and we can't pay full tuition. Look it sucks but if we can't afford it, we can't afford it. DD is screaming about taking out loans and I'm teaching her about budgeting for life. Housing, transportation, insurance, food, clothing, utilities, and entertainment. We're looking at starting salaries for her field-- taking out taxes and 401k. You know what-- she doesn't have enough money left over to pay her loans.

She's mopey and pissed off at us. But we can't afford it. She knew before applying that without aid she could not attend but she believed aid would come. It didn't and my heart breaks for her. But this is the reality of life.

So basically, she can't attend dream school because she can't pony up the extra 10k of tuition for another student whose parents didn't plan for college. And that becomes your problem. Charming.

How do you know this? Maybe PP didn't plan well enough for college. Who are you to judge who is more deserving or worthy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You gotta be f'ing kidding me. Of course it's outrageous. Schools don't have to pay for lower SES kids, full pay parents do.

If you think that's outrageous, then send your child to the University of Phoenix or some other for-profit.

You don't? Tell me why.

Different PP (I'm the one who thinks she can afford to spend "only" $30k/year on college, though FAFSA thinks we can afford much more), but I'll tell you why I don't find it outrageous:

Because I think Low SES kids gave just as much right to go to college as high SES kids.

Because I don't think relative privilege in society entitles one's child to attend a "prestigious" college.

Because I think private colleges can entitled admit who they want and design financial aid and merit aid packages any way they want, offering discounts to whomever they want.

Because I think there are benefits for all students when colleges are economically diverse places.

Because I recognize my relative privilege and don't mind contributing towards the greater good. We all benefit from an educated populace. And I don't believe it is beneficial to society to burden our young people with crushing debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You gotta be f'ing kidding me. Of course it's outrageous. Schools don't have to pay for lower SES kids, full pay parents do.

If you think that's outrageous, then send your child to the University of Phoenix or some other for-profit.

You don't? Tell me why.

Different PP (I'm the one who thinks she can afford to spend "only" $30k/year on college, though FAFSA thinks we can afford much more), but I'll tell you why I don't find it outrageous:

Because I think Low SES kids gave just as much right to go to college as high SES kids.

Because I don't think relative privilege in society entitles one's child to attend a "prestigious" college.

Because I think private colleges can entitled admit who they want and design financial aid and merit aid packages any way they want, offering discounts to whomever they want.

Because I think there are benefits for all students when colleges are economically diverse places.

Because I recognize my relative privilege and don't mind contributing towards the greater good. We all benefit from an educated populace. And I don't believe it is beneficial to society to burden our young people with crushing debt.

Oh, forgot one:

Because nobody is forcing full pay parents to pay $60k/year. If that's too rich for their blood, they can send their children to state schools or chase merit aid at less prestigious colleges. Just like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

GW's always done this. They charge certain students full-freight - those with rich parents or international students. Then they can offer full-tuition merit scholarships to the kids they are trying to attract from various backgrounds.

So I got a full-tuition scholarship there based on my national merit status (top 1%ile SAT scores, 4.3 GPA), which was a godsend, because we didn't qualify for need-based aid. (my dad made an ok living but we were in debt due to medical bills from a chronic illness.)