Donut hole reality

[Anonymous]

I think the real issue is that COL isn't factored. A family living on 250K annually in Oklahoma will have substantially more disposable income than a family in San Fran/NY/LA/DC. I wish FAFSA factored the local cost-of-living into the equation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue is that COL isn't factored. A family living on 250K annually in Oklahoma will have substantially more disposable income than a family in San Fran/NY/LA/DC. I wish FAFSA factored the local cost-of-living into the equation.

I agree. Cost of living and state taxation policy that differs from federal policy should be a factor. We all can’t be American Gothic characters like the federal government assumes we are. With that said, my tax dollars subsidize plenty of people’s educations. I don’t need to pay 2-for-1 just because I live in a HCOL area with a highly educated population, but that is how the FAFSA calculation works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s not donut hole. That’s a comfortable family. The rest of our kids go to state schools.

This. If you have sticker shock, but the ability to pay you aren't really a donut hole.

Ability to pay is often at the cost of liquidating retirement funds, home equity, life style and nursing home savings.

Shouldn't be. The top schools have excellent need based FA. Many who would be a fafsa doughnut hole would get FA. To be paying full price means, you are well off in earnings and non-retirement assets. Even home equity is often capped (not 2nd or 3rd home of course).

The real problem is failing to save. No one should expect to cashflow college. We started saving when kids in elementary and thought we were late to the game.

Bullsh. First of all, by the time you get to college aged kids, you may be making the most salary you've made. But almost no one makes that their entire career. We saved and save a LOT. We have old cars. No second home. No generational wealth. We have good retirement. Those are the things we've funded: college and retirement.

But all of those things are counted against us, as if we can cashflow $50-90k/year. We can't. And we aren't getting aid. We've made our peace with the schools are high stats kid can go (based on finances) and have had to forego much better schools b/c of money. It should not be this way.

I get that those of you not as well off like to dump on higher earners (UMC) to make yourselves feel better. But we've done everything right. Both coming from just above poverty line upbringings. The "American Dream" of work hard and good things flow from that is a bunch of horse sh-- when it comes to college admissions and sending your kids to the best school. The very wealthy get that opportunity. The poor get that opportunity. No one else.

You live under your means, you save starting at birth and when your income increases you save it vs changing your spending.

Will you be repeating this same ridiculous, tone-deaf message when the cost of elite schools exceeds $100K/year? $200K? Just save, sacrifice, drive an old car?

At what point in your view is it just not possible for donut hole families?

And why is this ok again?

DP: why is it okay for you to assume that everyone is entitled to an education at an elite university? There are tons of affordable universities for students that most kids can gain admission to. VCU/JMU/GMU in VA. Towson, UMBC in MD. Just to name a few.
There are places to get a great education that can be affordable to you. Instead of complaining about the elite T25 schools (That are more highly rejective than selective---most likely your kid isn't getting in), focus your efforts on finding schools that are affordable.

There is the CC to 4 year college plan as well. It's extremely affordable. Even more affordable if you do DE in HS and graduate HS with your AA as well. Then the first 2 years cost you maybe $4K (in my area it's cost of books only). Then you only need 2 years at 4 year to finish up.

I agree it's ridiculous things cost $85K+. But that's really only 50-60 schools that cost more than that and some of them do give merit awards.

Why? Because this is $%#$% The United States of America where hard work is supposed to net results. That is what we are told since the day we are born. It is why immigrants flock to this country and always have. But the reality is, that's not the reality. You can work as hard as you want, check every box, save lots of money and you'll still be iced out of the "top schools."

Why should that be just b/c some family is in a "donut hole" range? Why should the uber rich or the poor get those spots or be more deserving of those spots? They shouldn't. Plain and simple.

Oh, good grief. Hard work does net results. If you save lots of money and have a good income, that is the result! You are the big winner. And, you can pay. MC families don't get iced out of aid at top schools. We get good aid. You sound wealthy and entitled. Some of us put in lots of "hard work" and don't make that level of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue is that COL isn't factored. A family living on 250K annually in Oklahoma will have substantially more disposable income than a family in San Fran/NY/LA/DC. I wish FAFSA factored the local cost-of-living into the equation.

Does CSS factor this? It might....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s not donut hole. That’s a comfortable family. The rest of our kids go to state schools.

This. If you have sticker shock, but the ability to pay you aren't really a donut hole.

Ability to pay is often at the cost of liquidating retirement funds, home equity, life style and nursing home savings.

Shouldn't be. The top schools have excellent need based FA. Many who would be a fafsa doughnut hole would get FA. To be paying full price means, you are well off in earnings and non-retirement assets. Even home equity is often capped (not 2nd or 3rd home of course).

The real problem is failing to save. No one should expect to cashflow college. We started saving when kids in elementary and thought we were late to the game.

Bullsh. First of all, by the time you get to college aged kids, you may be making the most salary you've made. But almost no one makes that their entire career. We saved and save a LOT. We have old cars. No second home. No generational wealth. We have good retirement. Those are the things we've funded: college and retirement.

But all of those things are counted against us, as if we can cashflow $50-90k/year. We can't. And we aren't getting aid. We've made our peace with the schools are high stats kid can go (based on finances) and have had to forego much better schools b/c of money. It should not be this way.

I get that those of you not as well off like to dump on higher earners (UMC) to make yourselves feel better. But we've done everything right. Both coming from just above poverty line upbringings. The "American Dream" of work hard and good things flow from that is a bunch of horse sh-- when it comes to college admissions and sending your kids to the best school. The very wealthy get that opportunity. The poor get that opportunity. No one else.

You live under your means, you save starting at birth and when your income increases you save it vs changing your spending.

Will you be repeating this same ridiculous, tone-deaf message when the cost of elite schools exceeds $100K/year? $200K? Just save, sacrifice, drive an old car?

At what point in your view is it just not possible for donut hole families?

And why is this ok again?

The point is when you choose an expensive house, cars, vacations and lifestyle while others of us save and don't do those things on equal or less income, why do you feel entitled to tons of aid while we have to full pay?

It's all about choices. You chose to have the house, fancy cars, fancy vacations and fancy lifestyle and not save as much for college. No problem with that. As long as you don't now feel entitled to financial aid.
If I cannot afford a $80K car, I buy a $30K Honda/Toyota. I don't complain that it's not fair. Or I drive my current car another 2-3 years and actively save so that I can afford a nicer car (maybe a $50K). But I dont' complain that others can afford it and life isn't fair.
Same with a house or vacations. We lived our 20s paying off college debt and saving saving saving. Didn't have kids until we were 30+ so we could be financially sound. We were mid to late 30s before we took "fancy vacations". We still enjoyed life, just did it on a reasonable budget. But we knew plenty of people who spent spent spent. Maybe it was worth it for them. maybe not. I just know I don't regret getting a strong financial base when young, even if it meant forgoing "luxury items"

blah blah blah. We drive Hondas. We save aggressively. We paid off our own loans and our mortgage. We don't take elaborate vacations or into name brands --Canadian goose jackets and other expensive sh**t.

And, yeah, 95-100k/year for college for two kids is still ridiculous. $800k for two BA or BS degrees---yeah--incredibly ridiculous.

+100000

I am laughing even thinking of it!

You are literally paying for another student’s COA. That is how these boards have determined 90k is full pay. It’s literally the cost of educating and housing two students at these schools. They hide it but it’s there if you pay attention to who pays what and what it pays for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue is that COL isn't factored. A family living on 250K annually in Oklahoma will have substantially more disposable income than a family in San Fran/NY/LA/DC. I wish FAFSA factored the local cost-of-living into the equation.

Does CSS factor this? It might....

No, it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue is that COL isn't factored. A family living on 250K annually in Oklahoma will have substantially more disposable income than a family in San Fran/NY/LA/DC. I wish FAFSA factored the local cost-of-living into the equation.

No sh***t! It's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A tiny subset of people think it's smart and shows "value" by saving for 18 years - skipping out on taking kids to see London or having an apartment with a third bedroom - so you can blow it all for 4 years of Vassar. Just so that kid can then grow up to save and scrimp for 18 years in their 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom apartment with 1.4 kids

Most Americans making 250k feel fine about having a 4th kid, putting in a pool, buying that Serena and Lilly patio set, going to see the World Cup, sending their parents on a cruise, buying their 18 year old a car, throwing a big wedding, writing a check for kid's downpayment and generally enjoying life. Sure, their kids go to U of Illinois or Wisconsin. Guess what? They have a ball and then get the same jobs as our kids.

DCUM is home to that first tiny subset. Most Americans do not find this life at all aspirational.

This is true and I'm quite glad and quite proud to be part of the tiny subset. And that's because my parents - who were first generation - understood that education mattered, and took out a second mortgage so I could go to an Ivy League school. My career and my life as a whole are fundamentally different than the other kids I grew up with as a result. I will happily skip the cruise and the overpriced patio set so that I can give my kids the luxury of wider options in life.

it's narrow minded - and arrogant - to think that the other family making 250k and sending their kids off to State U do not also have a good education and fulfilling careers. Look at the list of CEOs across a variety of industries, look at writers, politicians, actors, and doctors. They went to State U - and proudly! I went to UCLA. My husband went to Yale. The outcome of his friend group and mine are more alike than different. If anything, I have the more successful friends or, at least, fewer f ups

[Anonymous]

It is sad that so many of us have bought into the notion that high-quality higher ed is a luxury good, like a Gucci bag.

For most of these schools, their prestige comes from how few people can access what they're selling. Drive up the price. Drive down the admission rate. That makes the school hot!

Instead of endless marketing and building luxury amenities at keeping-up-with-the-Jones rates, schools should invest in growing their capacity and holding down costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is sad that so many of us have bought into the notion that high-quality higher ed is a luxury good, like a Gucci bag.

For most of these schools, their prestige comes from how few people can access what they're selling. Drive up the price. Drive down the admission rate. That makes the school hot!

Instead of endless marketing and building luxury amenities at keeping-up-with-the-Jones rates, schools should invest in growing their capacity and holding down costs.

so you are ok with high end brand but just not for higher education? how do you draw the line?

[Anonymous]

I agree that it’s messed up, and the cost and competition at publics seems to only go up. IMO, if they made parent plus loans eligible for IDR plans/SAVE like they do Grad plus loans, that might take some of the edge off just a little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is sad that so many of us have bought into the notion that high-quality higher ed is a luxury good, like a Gucci bag.

For most of these schools, their prestige comes from how few people can access what they're selling. Drive up the price. Drive down the admission rate. That makes the school hot!

Instead of endless marketing and building luxury amenities at keeping-up-with-the-Jones rates, schools should invest in growing their capacity and holding down costs.

That s chool endowments have more than tripled over the last two decades and the number of enrolled undergrads hasnt gone up by much tells you a lot about the basic supply demand imbalance that we are seeing today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s not donut hole. That’s a comfortable family. The rest of our kids go to state schools.

This. If you have sticker shock, but the ability to pay you aren't really a donut hole.

Ability to pay is often at the cost of liquidating retirement funds, home equity, life style and nursing home savings.

Shouldn't be. The top schools have excellent need based FA. Many who would be a fafsa doughnut hole would get FA. To be paying full price means, you are well off in earnings and non-retirement assets. Even home equity is often capped (not 2nd or 3rd home of course).

The real problem is failing to save. No one should expect to cashflow college. We started saving when kids in elementary and thought we were late to the game.

Bullsh. First of all, by the time you get to college aged kids, you may be making the most salary you've made. But almost no one makes that their entire career. We saved and save a LOT. We have old cars. No second home. No generational wealth. We have good retirement. Those are the things we've funded: college and retirement.

But all of those things are counted against us, as if we can cashflow $50-90k/year. We can't. And we aren't getting aid. We've made our peace with the schools are high stats kid can go (based on finances) and have had to forego much better schools b/c of money. It should not be this way.

I get that those of you not as well off like to dump on higher earners (UMC) to make yourselves feel better. But we've done everything right. Both coming from just above poverty line upbringings. The "American Dream" of work hard and good things flow from that is a bunch of horse sh-- when it comes to college admissions and sending your kids to the best school. The very wealthy get that opportunity. The poor get that opportunity. No one else.

You live under your means, you save starting at birth and when your income increases you save it vs changing your spending.

Will you be repeating this same ridiculous, tone-deaf message when the cost of elite schools exceeds $100K/year? $200K? Just save, sacrifice, drive an old car?

At what point in your view is it just not possible for donut hole families?

And why is this ok again?

DP: why is it okay for you to assume that everyone is entitled to an education at an elite university? There are tons of affordable universities for students that most kids can gain admission to. VCU/JMU/GMU in VA. Towson, UMBC in MD. Just to name a few.
There are places to get a great education that can be affordable to you. Instead of complaining about the elite T25 schools (That are more highly rejective than selective---most likely your kid isn't getting in), focus your efforts on finding schools that are affordable.

There is the CC to 4 year college plan as well. It's extremely affordable. Even more affordable if you do DE in HS and graduate HS with your AA as well. Then the first 2 years cost you maybe $4K (in my area it's cost of books only). Then you only need 2 years at 4 year to finish up.

I agree it's ridiculous things cost $85K+. But that's really only 50-60 schools that cost more than that and some of them do give merit awards.

Why? Because this is $%#$% The United States of America where hard work is supposed to net results. That is what we are told since the day we are born. It is why immigrants flock to this country and always have. But the reality is, that's not the reality. You can work as hard as you want, check every box, save lots of money and you'll still be iced out of the "top schools."

Why should that be just b/c some family is in a "donut hole" range? Why should the uber rich or the poor get those spots or be more deserving of those spots? They shouldn't. Plain and simple.

Oh, good grief. Hard work does net results. If you save lots of money and have a good income, that is the result! You are the big winner. And, you can pay. MC families don't get iced out of aid at top schools. We get good aid. You sound wealthy and entitled. Some of us put in lots of "hard work" and don't make that level of money.

Their "hard work" is likely what allowed them to raise their kid in an environment such that they are even considering T25/elite universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue is that COL isn't factored. A family living on 250K annually in Oklahoma will have substantially more disposable income than a family in San Fran/NY/LA/DC. I wish FAFSA factored the local cost-of-living into the equation.

Does CSS factor this? It might....

No, it’s lifestyle choices. I can have more money than you as I live very differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is sad that so many of us have bought into the notion that high-quality higher ed is a luxury good, like a Gucci bag.

For most of these schools, their prestige comes from how few people can access what they're selling. Drive up the price. Drive down the admission rate. That makes the school hot!

Instead of endless marketing and building luxury amenities at keeping-up-with-the-Jones rates, schools should invest in growing their capacity and holding down costs.

That s chool endowments have more than tripled over the last two decades and the number of enrolled undergrads hasnt gone up by much tells you a lot about the basic supply demand imbalance that we are seeing today.

Where exactly would you like Columbia or Harvard to expand? They would not be the same quality school if they added an additional 5K+ undergrads. Not to mention where the hell would they house them, send them to class, etc? Columbia has finite space. Would you propose that classes start at 7am and continue until 10pm M-Saturday in order to accommodate 10K undergrads at Columbia and other elite institutions? Where will they get the additional faculty who would agree to teach under these ridiculous schedules? Adjunct faculty from the local CC or other local universities?