Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?

[Anonymous]

Oh yes, it is common knowledge that schools like Bucknell are populated with the poorest of the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You continue to imply that there are people who instead made irresponsible decisions or are not hardworking, and that those people qualify for aid.

In most of the country a two nurse or teacher household is making far lower than $200k, FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, please. In 95% of America, dual income teachers, social workers, nurses, firefighters, etc. are making well below the threshold for financial aid at the Harvards and Yales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think Harvard is WELL aware of the "we don't have any money left after we spent it all" upper middle class whiners.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

[Anonymous]

Do not hide this policy in any way. Before a student even applies, they can run the calculator to see an estimate of the award amount.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

not the lowest of incomes, or even low income. household incomes up to the 75th, 80th, 85th percentile in the us will receive "massive" aid from the top colleges. Over half of households in the us would qualify for free room, board, and tuition at stanford, for example. 80% of households ($150k) would receive free tuition at stanford. now, of course there is the argument that lower/lower middle/midle class kids are less likely to get into stanford et al. than their higher income peers. fair. still, not remotely accurate to say you need to be low, and certainly not lowEST income for "massive aid."

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

not the lowest of incomes, or even low income. household incomes up to the 75th, 80th, 85th percentile in the us will receive "massive" aid from the top colleges. Over half of households in the us would qualify for free room, board, and tuition at stanford, for example. 80% of households ($150k) would receive free tuition at stanford. now, of course there is the argument that lower/lower middle/midle class kids are less likely to get into stanford et al. than their higher income peers. fair. still, not remotely accurate to say you need to be low, and certainly not lowEST income for "massive aid."

Yes, all of this is right. Which is why, for the tippy top schools, "donut hole" is a complete myth. In reality, schools accurately determine who can afford the schools and who is wealthy enough to pay up, even if those people are themselves in denial.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

not the lowest of incomes, or even low income. household incomes up to the 75th, 80th, 85th percentile in the us will receive "massive" aid from the top colleges. Over half of households in the us would qualify for free room, board, and tuition at stanford, for example. 80% of households ($150k) would receive free tuition at stanford. now, of course there is the argument that lower/lower middle/midle class kids are less likely to get into stanford et al. than their higher income peers. fair. still, not remotely accurate to say you need to be low, and certainly not lowEST income for "massive aid."

Yes, all of this is right. Which is why, for the tippy top schools, "donut hole" is a complete myth. In reality, schools accurately determine who can afford the schools and who is wealthy enough to pay up, even if those people are themselves in denial.

Yes because the schools are the all knowing arbiters of what is a reasonable expectation for a middle class family to pay for their product

[Anonymous]

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.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

If the average aid award is 55k and like 2/3 students get it, then a very large percentage must be getting all or almost all of their costs covered

[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.

+1 "poor" is a relative term, as is "rich".

If you're getting financial aid, then you are "poor" to those expensive colleges.

[Anonymous]

It seems like Cornell has crappy FA. Lots of posts on Reddit by students about their debt and financial issues.

[Anonymous]

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.

I have no problem with giving lower income kids a leg up, and actually, I grew up lower income to immigrant parents who don't speak English. I know what it's like to not have support or "privilege".

I managed to go to no name state school eons ago, worked my way through college, and got a job. I lived frugally, worked hard, and live a nice life now. But, I make too much for any aid but not enough to afford $320K for two kids in college.

The system is just messed up. College costs need to be regulated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Cornell has crappy FA. Lots of posts on Reddit by students about their debt and financial issues.

I guess their parents didn't tell them that it was a bad idea to take out too much loans just for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like Cornell has crappy FA. Lots of posts on Reddit by students about their debt and financial issues.

I guess their parents didn't tell them that it was a bad idea to take out too much loans just for college.

Not every parent is aware or understands that, particularly if the child is a first-generation college student. Colleges often sell families a bill of goods.