Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?

[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.

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

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

I think the big picture is- you have to come from fairly modest circumstances to be able to afford it, because most or all of your costs will be covered. Alternatively, you can be very affluent such that 80k is not a big deal. But there is a very large segment of the population that is “doing okay” but for whom it’s just not practical to stretch their personal finances to pay full price, go into debt, etc. Full price for a private education is a lot higher than it was 30 years ago because the price tag has surpassed the inflation rate and this has compounded. At the same time, financial aid for the bottom segment has become a lot more generous as endowments have exploded. But instead of using the endowment money to slow down tuition hikes, they use it to cover costs for lower income students. The end result is a very bifurcated class profile where the majority of the class comes from modest (if not poor) backgrounds and then for the most part the rest of the class is loaded. But most of the kids come from modest/poor backgrounds- whatever adjective you want to use. As opposed to middle class or upper middle class backgrounds which is how it was historically.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

Not fully "all knowing" but they have a fairly good idea. Yes, some people hit life events (medical usually), but many choose not to save despite knowing they make decent money. Make that choice, and you might not afford Harvard. But you will be able to afford right below it. So focus your efforts on that. Or make the choice to save more

[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.

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

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

I think the big picture is- you have to come from fairly modest circumstances to be able to afford it, because most or all of your costs will be covered. Alternatively, you can be very affluent such that 80k is not a big deal. But there is a very large segment of the population that is “doing okay” but for whom it’s just not practical to stretch their personal finances to pay full price, go into debt, etc. Full price for a private education is a lot higher than it was 30 years ago because the price tag has surpassed the inflation rate and this has compounded. At the same time, financial aid for the bottom segment has become a lot more generous as endowments have exploded. But instead of using the endowment money to slow down tuition hikes, they use it to cover costs for lower income students. The end result is a very bifurcated class profile where the majority of the class comes from modest (if not poor) backgrounds and then for the most part the rest of the class is loaded. But most of the kids come from modest/poor backgrounds- whatever adjective you want to use. As opposed to middle class or upper middle class backgrounds which is how it was historically.

I don’t believe this. Top schools have historically been mostly RICH students not UMC. 18+ years ago, prep schools were sending hordes of kids to these schools. Their college counselors would speak on behalf of students routinely.

[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.

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

Not fully "all knowing" but they have a fairly good idea. Yes, some people hit life events (medical usually), but many choose not to save despite knowing they make decent money. Make that choice, and you might not afford Harvard. But you will be able to afford right below it. So focus your efforts on that. Or make the choice to save more

This exemplifies the very snotty attitude of these schools to the petit bourgeoisie- the middlebrow mouthbreathers.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

Well I think they're spot on correct. They help people who need it and expect people with significant money to spend that money. Sorry you don't want to!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know.. my parents are immigrants, uneducated, and other than a mortgage, they don't like to carry debt, not even credit card debt. All of my siblings are like this, too.

I don't think these are immigrant families we're talking about here. Many such families live frugally and don't like to take on a lot of debt.

And this backs up my statement (I'm an Asian immigrant):

Black and African American college graduates owe an average of $25,000 more in student loan debt than White college graduates.
Four years after graduation, 48% of Black students owe an average of 6% more than they borrowed.
Black and African American student borrowers are the most likely to struggle financially due to student loan debt making monthly payments of $289.
54% of all student loan debt is held by White and Caucasian student borrowers.
Asian college graduates are the fastest to repay their loan debt and the most likely to earn a salary that exceeds their student loan debt balance.

https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-race

[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.

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

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

I think the big picture is- you have to come from fairly modest circumstances to be able to afford it, because most or all of your costs will be covered. Alternatively, you can be very affluent such that 80k is not a big deal. But there is a very large segment of the population that is “doing okay” but for whom it’s just not practical to stretch their personal finances to pay full price, go into debt, etc. Full price for a private education is a lot higher than it was 30 years ago because the price tag has surpassed the inflation rate and this has compounded. At the same time, financial aid for the bottom segment has become a lot more generous as endowments have exploded. But instead of using the endowment money to slow down tuition hikes, they use it to cover costs for lower income students. The end result is a very bifurcated class profile where the majority of the class comes from modest (if not poor) backgrounds and then for the most part the rest of the class is loaded. But most of the kids come from modest/poor backgrounds- whatever adjective you want to use. As opposed to middle class or upper middle class backgrounds which is how it was historically.

not at all. Actual middle class families get plenty of aid at Ivies/equivalent. The vast majority of students at those schools are middle class or above. The percent of students coming from actual modest/poor backgrounds is quite small. For example, just 11% of students at Tufts have incomes in the bottom 60% of US households. The Ivies average about 15%. 6.1% at Wash U.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know.. my parents are immigrants, uneducated, and other than a mortgage, they don't like to carry debt, not even credit card debt. All of my siblings are like this, too.

I don't think these are immigrant families we're talking about here. Many such families live frugally and don't like to take on a lot of debt.

And this backs up my statement (I'm an Asian immigrant):

Black and African American college graduates owe an average of $25,000 more in student loan debt than White college graduates.
Four years after graduation, 48% of Black students owe an average of 6% more than they borrowed.
Black and African American student borrowers are the most likely to struggle financially due to student loan debt making monthly payments of $289.
54% of all student loan debt is held by White and Caucasian student borrowers.
Asian college graduates are the fastest to repay their loan debt and the most likely to earn a salary that exceeds their student loan debt balance.
[/b]

https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-race

I do know. I see you glossed over something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't know.. my parents are immigrants, uneducated, and other than a mortgage, they don't like to carry debt, not even credit card debt. All of my siblings are like this, too.

I don't think these are immigrant families we're talking about here. Many such families live frugally and don't like to take on a lot of debt.

And this backs up my statement (I'm an Asian immigrant):

Black and African American college graduates owe an average of $25,000 more in student loan debt than White college graduates.
Four years after graduation, 48% of Black students owe an average of 6% more than they borrowed.
Black and African American student borrowers are the most likely to struggle financially due to student loan debt making monthly payments of $289.
54% of all student loan debt is held by White and Caucasian student borrowers.
Asian college graduates are the fastest to repay their loan debt and the most likely to earn a salary that exceeds their student loan debt balance.

https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-race

The term “first-generation college student” means the student is the first person in their family to go to a 4-year college, not that they’re an immigrant. An immigrant could be someone who was educated in their home country, possibly even at no cost to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Not fully "all knowing" but they have a fairly good idea. Yes, some people hit life events (medical usually), but many choose not to save despite knowing they make decent money. Make that choice, and you might not afford Harvard. But you will be able to afford right below it. So focus your efforts on that. Or make the choice to save more

This exemplifies the very snotty attitude of these schools to the petit bourgeoisie- the middlebrow mouthbreathers.

I simply do not understand why you feel so entitled to a "luxury product" when you cannot afford it? Do you do this with everything else in life? Genuinely curious.

Most are focused on complaining "it's not fair, we can't afford T25/elite universities" when the reality is majority of kids, even those with the stats are not going to get admitted anyhow. Life isn't fair, not everyone who wants to attend school X will get in.

[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.

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

Well I think they're spot on correct. They help people who need it and expect people with significant money to spend that money. Sorry you don't want to!

This has nothing to do w me personally. I’m a 1 percenter who will be paying retail come September. I just know how hard it would be for a family in the 200k range to make it happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Not fully "all knowing" but they have a fairly good idea. Yes, some people hit life events (medical usually), but many choose not to save despite knowing they make decent money. Make that choice, and you might not afford Harvard. But you will be able to afford right below it. So focus your efforts on that. Or make the choice to save more

This exemplifies the very snotty attitude of these schools to the petit bourgeoisie- the middlebrow mouthbreathers.

I simply do not understand why you feel so entitled to a "luxury product" when you cannot afford it? Do you do this with everything else in life? Genuinely curious.

Most are focused on complaining "it's not fair, we can't afford T25/elite universities" when the reality is majority of kids, even those with the stats are not going to get admitted anyhow. Life isn't fair, not everyone who wants to attend school X will get in.

I can totally afford it. That’s not the issue. I just don’t embrace this let them eat cake attitude. And I empathize because when I went to college my parents were not in the position I am now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

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

I think the big picture is- you have to come from fairly modest circumstances to be able to afford it, because most or all of your costs will be covered. Alternatively, you can be very affluent such that 80k is not a big deal. But there is a very large segment of the population that is “doing okay” but for whom it’s just not practical to stretch their personal finances to pay full price, go into debt, etc. Full price for a private education is a lot higher than it was 30 years ago because the price tag has surpassed the inflation rate and this has compounded. At the same time, financial aid for the bottom segment has become a lot more generous as endowments have exploded. But instead of using the endowment money to slow down tuition hikes, they use it to cover costs for lower income students. The end result is a very bifurcated class profile where the majority of the class comes from modest (if not poor) backgrounds and then for the most part the rest of the class is loaded. But most of the kids come from modest/poor backgrounds- whatever adjective you want to use. As opposed to middle class or upper middle class backgrounds which is how it was historically.

I don’t believe this. Top schools have historically been mostly RICH students not UMC. 18+ years ago, prep schools were sending hordes of kids to these schools. Their college counselors would speak on behalf of students routinely.

I went to an Ivy in the late 1990s. The average student was from a comfortable professional UMC family who paid full tuition. But not rich. Were there rich kids? Sure. But most were not. Just as most were not poor either.

It's no secret the donut hole demographics, upper middle class who could have afforded private colleges in the past but who can't quality for financial aid, has grown over the last two decades. It's been an interesting evolution and one even sees this in the recent admittees from private schools, either wealthy AND connected or financial aid pupil from a disadvantaged or minority background. The horde of unconnected kids from prosperous but not rich families has fallen sharply in the pipeline to the Ivins.

I do wonder what it means for the long run. In many ways, the Ivies and certain elite LACs are losing cultural prestige. I know in my workplace we no longer look at recent graduates from the Ivies in the same light as we did just 10 pr 15 years ago and our best associates now come from a much bigger range or colleges and I know from conversations they often picked their colleges due to merit packages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Not fully "all knowing" but they have a fairly good idea. Yes, some people hit life events (medical usually), but many choose not to save despite knowing they make decent money. Make that choice, and you might not afford Harvard. But you will be able to afford right below it. So focus your efforts on that. Or make the choice to save more

This exemplifies the very snotty attitude of these schools to the petit bourgeoisie- the middlebrow mouthbreathers.

I simply do not understand why you feel so entitled to a "luxury product" when you cannot afford it? Do you do this with everything else in life? Genuinely curious.

Most are focused on complaining "it's not fair, we can't afford T25/elite universities" when the reality is majority of kids, even those with the stats are not going to get admitted anyhow. Life isn't fair, not everyone who wants to attend school X will get in.

I can totally afford it. That’s not the issue. I just don’t embrace this let them eat cake attitude. And I empathize because when I went to college my parents were not in the position I am now.

I can empathize with those who truly cannot afford it. However, if I put $791/month in a 529 starting when a kid is born (~$9500/year), I would have $322K when they turn 18 (assuming 7% rate of return). I'd argue that anyone making $200K should be able to do this, if they really desire Harvard for their kid. And if you couldn't put it in when they were 1 or 2, then catch up by putting in most of your salary increases and continue living with same budget until you are "caught up" But someone bringing in $11K/month after taxes should be able to put $791 towards college savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Not fully "all knowing" but they have a fairly good idea. Yes, some people hit life events (medical usually), but many choose not to save despite knowing they make decent money. Make that choice, and you might not afford Harvard. But you will be able to afford right below it. So focus your efforts on that. Or make the choice to save more

This exemplifies the very snotty attitude of these schools to the petit bourgeoisie- the middlebrow mouthbreathers.

I simply do not understand why you feel so entitled to a "luxury product" when you cannot afford it? Do you do this with everything else in life? Genuinely curious.

Most are focused on complaining "it's not fair, we can't afford T25/elite universities" when the reality is majority of kids, even those with the stats are not going to get admitted anyhow. Life isn't fair, not everyone who wants to attend school X will get in.

If it’s a luxury product, let the price rise as far as it can go. When market equilibrium is reached, no one here will be able to afford it and you may not want it anymore.