Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?

[Anonymous]

There is one school that was very high on my list that I thought would be a great school for my kid. It's not a "top" school. But selective. But they don't give any merit aid. They make it clear. They only give need based aid, and they are need blind. And even though we could technically afford it, I just could not see paying 80,000 a year for a school that wasn't an Ivy or top 10 LAC or something. It would eat into any savings we had for grad school or other things we might want to help our kid with someday.

I did think...how many of the kids at this school, which is a really small school, are there who are on financial aid vs. the ones who are full pay, and doesn't that create a strange dynamic? I had a friend who got a scholarship to an SLAC known for having a lot of rich kids--this was back in the 90s. She could never have gone there without aid. But I do remember her talking about how weird it was when her classmates had chalets in France and just lived entirely different lives from her. This wasn't an Ivy. It was just an artsy SLAC.

I feel like it would create a have/have not situation where you have half of the students doing work study, having jobs, etc....and then half is jetting off with famous parents or going to Switzerland to ski over winter break or whatever. Would I want my kid in an environment like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What assets are you assuming? We don’t qualify for any at $125k per year due to a six figure inheritance, some of which went directly to our kids and hence counts as 25% per year instead of 5.64%. After college, we all have nothing left but we’re full pay.

This is us. While I'd like to complain, I can't. Life is not fair.

It's just one more reason we wish had our gone-too-soon parents back and they could've spent that lifetime of savings on themselves rather than on four years for their grandchild (when none of them went to college themselves and only two even had high school diplomas).

Without adding too much more to the rinse-repeat conversation, just a reminder that the OP titled this thread with top private colleges. To those who say (or imply) settle for in-state...that's an entirely different premise. Ultimately, I disagree with the OP. I sincerely believe the top private colleges are still, and mostly, for the rich, either through ability to full- or significantly-pay without pain or having the on-going resources to develop a child capable of entry to said colleges.

[Anonymous]

What’s with the daily threads on how rich kids are so disadvantaged, private school kids are so disadvantaged yada yada

Give away all your belongings and send your kid to Dunbar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re free to quit your job if being poor is so awesome. *Crickets*

I suspect a lot of families do somehow game the financial aid system this way. Like maybe one parent stops working. Getting 320k of aid bears a pre tax income of 80k or whatever

What a stupid gamble if that is what they are doing. Most middle class families and above have 529s anyway and are hoping for some merit scholarship of some kind. So even if they “gamed” the system, if they made the responsible choice to set up a 529, then they wouldn’t get much “need aid” anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is one school that was very high on my list that I thought would be a great school for my kid. It's not a "top" school. But selective. But they don't give any merit aid. They make it clear. They only give need based aid, and they are need blind. And even though we could technically afford it, I just could not see paying 80,000 a year for a school that wasn't an Ivy or top 10 LAC or something. It would eat into any savings we had for grad school or other things we might want to help our kid with someday.

I did think...how many of the kids at this school, which is a really small school, are there who are on financial aid vs. the ones who are full pay, and doesn't that create a strange dynamic? I had a friend who got a scholarship to an SLAC known for having a lot of rich kids--this was back in the 90s. She could never have gone there without aid. But I do remember her talking about how weird it was when her classmates had chalets in France and just lived entirely different lives from her. This wasn't an Ivy. It was just an artsy SLAC.

I feel like it would create a have/have not situation where you have half of the students doing work study, having jobs, etc....and then half is jetting off with famous parents or going to Switzerland to ski over winter break or whatever. Would I want my kid in an environment like that?

Uh that’s how D1 state schools are. The richer kids join Greek life, go to football & basketball games, study abroad, have cars as underclassmen, live in stunning off-campus lux apartments, travel together on spring break etc. Poorer kids can’t afford Greek life, spring break trips or game tickets and are at work on weekends while those events are happening. Poorer kids live far away and commute or share bedrooms in apartments. Etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Really tired of the word "privilege." It is used to undermine any success, accomplishment or talent any human being or family may lay claim to. It's like Obama's "you didn't build that."

Once you misrepresent something so obviously, it makes it hard to take any of your points seriously. (He was referring to the civic infrastructure the businesses use).

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

What you did is dishonest. Despite that, I will bite.

Are you saying that the concept of privilege is not a reasonable one?

I understood Obama’s context. He was saying a business owner really owes his success to the underlying civilization that allowed him to succeed so it’s not really his success. Just as a white kid who gets 1590 on his SATs really just has his rich parents and his skin color to thank. The whole notion of privilege is to say that what we have in life is really just a function of good fortune (unless you are Oprah or something in which case it’s totally earned). The concept of privilege is the opposite of merit (which is we are told a code word for white supremacy). Privileges are assigned by the social order and can be taken away, the opposite of inalienable rights or God given ability. The point of emphasizing that someone is privileged is to separate them from the things they have because they don’t truly deserve them. Privilege as a concept delegitimizes your standing. As I said it’s a rhetorical device to take from you.

[Anonymous]

Once again DCUM’s high income folks are mad they can only afford the luxuries they prioritize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am totally fine with top private colleges only taking the poor and rich. If Harvard can give that leg-up to poor kids then more power to them.

My own Asian-American UMC kid goes to UMD and gets merit $$. I am aware that UMD is affordable even without the merit aid, but free money and savings are always welcome.

All I would want to see is that the definition of "poor" be changed based on SES, marital status, COL. Let there we some sensible affirmative action in place. In other words, I am fine with Harvard not taking the kid of the rich Nigerian doctor, but instead they take a Black kid from the Bronx.

Similarly, the White kid living in DMV in a household making $150K needs aid because this is an expensive area. No one has any objection to affirmative action, if it is based on race and SES.

Even as I

Yeah, all we need is more complexity in the system for people to take advantage of. . .

. . . btw this is sarcasm. I actually believe college should be free to those that can get it. Make it more selective and only for the top 20%. Everyone else can do an apprenticeship like the olden days. All we are doing is “babying” young adults by paying loads for them to have debt forever for a “middle class” life. Not worth it (to me).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re free to quit your job if being poor is so awesome. *Crickets*

I suspect a lot of families do somehow game the financial aid system this way. Like maybe one parent stops working. Getting 320k of aid bears a pre tax income of 80k or whatever

What a stupid gamble if that is what they are doing. Most middle class families and above have 529s anyway and are hoping for some merit scholarship of some kind. So even if they “gamed” the system, if they made the responsible choice to set up a 529, then they wouldn’t get much “need aid” anyway.

It also makes no sense. For a normal family with 2 kids spaced 2 years apart, a parent would have to quit working for 6 full years to get the “benefit” of being poorer. For a family of 3, it’d be 8+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite is true,

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

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

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

Much easier to have the "resume" to get admitted to an elite university if you grew up privileged. The "poor" might attend schools with only a few AP courses if any, they did not have Kumon starting when they were 3, did not have tutors thru MS/HS or a college counselor or individual SAT test prep at $100+/hr. The list goes on and on. There is a dichotomy between what the privileged have growing up vs others. The non-affluent with the top test scores and gpa may not be able to even apply to an elite university because they are worried about affording it (transportation, books, spending $$, etc) so they apply to the local state U or do CC.
Basically, there are many more affluent people applying than non-affluent/poor.

I don't agree with OP's premise, however, my high stats kid has never had a tutor, test prep, or a college counselor other than what the public school provided.

Now, if you are comparing with a private school kid who has had their hand held by the private school, then I might agree with you.

Yours may not, but many top students have. Point is they have had privilege along the way, if needed to get assistance to keep them on track. They have had the opportunity to do ECs that cost money, they have the time to do ECs because they do not have to work to help the family or take care of younger siblings after school (or grandparents, etc). Much easier to achieve top stats when you don't have major obstacles in front of you. That's what privilege is.

Really tired of the word "privilege." It is used to undermine any success, accomplishment or talent any human being or family may lay claim to. It's like Obama's "you didn't build that." It's a rhetorical device to tell people and now even children: you deserve nothing that you have. We will take it from you and give it to someone else (someone who is "underprivileged," "marginalized," "disadvantaged," etc.) as we see fit. It's pure Marxism. You show me a person who uses the word privilege regularly, I will show you someone I disdain with every fiber of my being.

+1...lefty nut jobs support their cult as religiously as the right wing nut jobs. It will fade away once a new outrage is manufactured.

OP is the one who is outraged and implying that poor people are “privileged.”

I’m implying that there are a lot of poor people at top schools now - poor being a relative term- given the financial aid stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Really tired of the word "privilege." It is used to undermine any success, accomplishment or talent any human being or family may lay claim to. It's like Obama's "you didn't build that."

Once you misrepresent something so obviously, it makes it hard to take any of your points seriously. (He was referring to the civic infrastructure the businesses use).

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

What you did is dishonest. Despite that, I will bite.

Are you saying that the concept of privilege is not a reasonable one?

I understood Obama’s context. He was saying a business owner really owes his success to the underlying civilization that allowed him to succeed so it’s not really his success. Just as a white kid who gets 1590 on his SATs really just has his rich parents and his skin color to thank. The whole notion of privilege is to say that what we have in life is really just a function of good fortune (unless you are Oprah or something in which case it’s totally earned). The concept of privilege is the opposite of merit (which is we are told a code word for white supremacy). Privileges are assigned by the social order and can be taken away, the opposite of inalienable rights or God given ability. The point of emphasizing that someone is privileged is to separate them from the things they have because they don’t truly deserve them. Privilege as a concept delegitimizes your standing. As I said it’s a rhetorical device to take from you.

NP-And is used as a pejorative term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to confirm--OP and a few others on this thread are arguing that low-middle or middle-class families (approx. $65-150K) are poor and therefore, 2/3 of elite schools are full of poor (lower class) kids??

OP, do you consider everyone under $200K poor? So there are only the lower class, UMC, and the UC/wealthy?

I would consider someone poor who qualifies for financial aid that is basically or equal to a full ride. Perhaps poor is too harsh. I don’t mean it in the sense of indigent. I mean it in the sense of someone who has minimal ability to accumulate savings, is basically just surviving, and has insubstantial assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re free to quit your job if being poor is so awesome. *Crickets*

I suspect a lot of families do somehow game the financial aid system this way. Like maybe one parent stops working. Getting 320k of aid bears a pre tax income of 80k or whatever

What a stupid gamble if that is what they are doing. Most middle class families and above have 529s anyway and are hoping for some merit scholarship of some kind. So even if they “gamed” the system, if they made the responsible choice to set up a 529, then they wouldn’t get much “need aid” anyway.

Not necessarily true as 529s count as parent assets so only 5.64% counts toward your EFC each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to confirm--OP and a few others on this thread are arguing that low-middle or middle-class families (approx. $65-150K) are poor and therefore, 2/3 of elite schools are full of poor (lower class) kids??

OP, do you consider everyone under $200K poor? So there are only the lower class, UMC, and the UC/wealthy?

I would consider someone poor who qualifies for financial aid that is basically or equal to a full ride. Perhaps poor is too harsh. I don’t mean it in the sense of indigent. I mean it in the sense of someone who has minimal ability to accumulate savings, is basically just surviving, and has insubstantial assets.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, the use of the term poor is too harsh and doesn't describe the dominant population at schools such as Harvard. Poor people don't have the money to address basic needs to survive. You are describing the lower/middle class that can afford at least their basic needs.

Harvard classifies these students as middle class and part of their Middle Income Initiative, which was launched in 2008: https://financialaid.hcf.harvard.edu/hmii

https://financialaid.hcf.harvard.edu/hmii

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to confirm--OP and a few others on this thread are arguing that low-middle or middle-class families (approx. $65-150K) are poor and therefore, 2/3 of elite schools are full of poor (lower class) kids??

OP, do you consider everyone under $200K poor? So there are only the lower class, UMC, and the UC/wealthy?

I would consider someone poor who qualifies for financial aid that is basically or equal to a full ride. Perhaps poor is too harsh. I don’t mean it in the sense of indigent. I mean it in the sense of someone who has minimal ability to accumulate savings, is basically just surviving, and has insubstantial assets.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, the use of the term poor is too harsh and doesn't describe the dominant population at schools such as Harvard. Poor people don't have the money to address basic needs to survive. You are describing the lower/middle class that can afford at least their basic needs.

Harvard classifies these students as middle class and part of their Middle Income Initiative, which was launched in 2008: https://financialaid.hcf.harvard.edu/hmii

https://financialaid.hcf.harvard.edu/hmii

But what Harvard is overlooking is the upper/middle class--just above their need based cut off--who really can't afford 80k a year. These people are totally iced out or really have to sacrifice to make it happen. In many respects, these people are the backbone of America--the hardworking professionals, dual income, teachers, healthcare etc. Gosh, maybe they even saved some money along the way as they have made responsible decision after responsible decision. The children of this segment of the population are the ones who lose.