Donut hole reality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that DCUMers make the grave mistake of thinking that the endowment of each school is the bottom line. It is not. Yes, the full pay parents are paying for the next kid to attend - but the real issue is the donut hole people who have their hand out like it is their job. The same people who attended private school for nothing, but magically had multiple renovations, and the luxury car/s, living in a house worth a substantial amount. These are not people making the sacrifices they think they are making. They are getting much for nothing, and still refusing to save. Where does it end? DP here.

As far as colleges cramming as many kids as possible into the colleges, you want to live like China? Does that seem appealing? Where are all these professors and seats going to come from? The same tuition rate? Likely not. Again, where does it end?

What? You think donut hole families all went to private school for nothing?!?!! Lmaof.

I am from a donut hole family and went in-state public university. Private was out of the question. It was my only option. I make more than my parents did- but still donut hole—just above the cutoff for financial aid.

Donut hole is often a code for we make a good income and choose to spend it in a way that we aren't saving enough and want to whine about it. We don't do things like vacations to save...

-1,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that DCUMers make the grave mistake of thinking that the endowment of each school is the bottom line. It is not. Yes, the full pay parents are paying for the next kid to attend - but the real issue is the donut hole people who have their hand out like it is their job. The same people who attended private school for nothing, but magically had multiple renovations, and the luxury car/s, living in a house worth a substantial amount. These are not people making the sacrifices they think they are making. They are getting much for nothing, and still refusing to save. Where does it end? DP here.

As far as colleges cramming as many kids as possible into the colleges, you want to live like China? Does that seem appealing? Where are all these professors and seats going to come from? The same tuition rate? Likely not. Again, where does it end?

What? You think donut hole families all went to private school for nothing?!?!! Lmaof.

I am from a donut hole family and went in-state public university. Private was out of the question. It was my only option. I make more than my parents did- but still donut hole—just above the cutoff for financial aid.

Donut hole is often a code for we make a good income and choose to spend it in a way that we aren't saving enough and want to whine about it. We don't do things like vacations to save...

PP here. Point is, donut hole is an enormous range - not all donut hole are conscientiously making an effort to plan and provide for their children. Some simply expect a handout, because of their poor planning and lack of effort, even though it would have been possible for them to pay more out of pocket. This is obviously not all donut hole parents, but it is annoying to see the disparity between those paying full freight and those who could pay full freight, but refuse - but still want the same as other groups (be it too poor to pay, not for lack of trying, those who pay full freight, and anyone in between). The range is enormous.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:30-40 years ago people did cash flow college educations. No one “saved from birth” to send multiple children to college. Why did that change? When did financial aide mean here you go - take out loans? And once the student maxes out their allotted loan amount - here are special loans for the parents? Why do colleges enable this?

Huh? No they didn't. My parents saved from (my) birth for my college education. Anyone with thoughts of a private school was saving. Maybe state school people did cashflow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:30-40 years ago people did cash flow college educations. No one “saved from birth” to send multiple children to college. Why did that change? When did financial aide mean here you go - take out loans? And once the student maxes out their allotted loan amount - here are special loans for the parents? Why do colleges enable this?

"In 1980, the price to attend a four-year college full-time was $10,231 annually—including tuition, fees, room and board, and adjusted for inflation—according to the National Center for Education Statistics. By 2019-20, the total price increased to $28,775. That’s a 180% increase."

"State and local funding per student for higher education dropped about 25% between 1988 and 2018, according to an analysis by Douglas A. Webber, an associate professor of economics at Temple University."

(https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:30-40 years ago people did cash flow college educations. No one “saved from birth” to send multiple children to college. Why did that change? When did financial aide mean here you go - take out loans? And once the student maxes out their allotted loan amount - here are special loans for the parents? Why do colleges enable this?

My parents saved and grandparents were very generous. We saved since birth.

How old are you? when I was college age it cost about $10k to attend pretty much everywhere.

DP here. Did you attend a public college in Iowa in the 70's?

I graduated from a NESCAC school in 1983. At that time, my senior year, it cost around $9k/year.

That's about $31,000 in 2024 dollars.

[Anonymous]

PP here. Actually it's $28,041 in 2024 dollars.

[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.

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.

Wow, some people have it tough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Actually it's $28,041 in 2024 dollars.

You can thank the federal government for the tuition bill that is now 85K at the same school
-fellow NESCAC grad from 90s.

[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.

Exactly. The big problem with higher education is those SOBs living the good life in South Dakota, Kansas, & Arkansas, and then sending their stupid kids to Amherst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that DCUMers make the grave mistake of thinking that the endowment of each school is the bottom line. It is not. Yes, the full pay parents are paying for the next kid to attend - but the real issue is the donut hole people who have their hand out like it is their job. The same people who attended private school for nothing, but magically had multiple renovations, and the luxury car/s, living in a house worth a substantial amount. These are not people making the sacrifices they think they are making. They are getting much for nothing, and still refusing to save. Where does it end? DP here.

As far as colleges cramming as many kids as possible into the colleges, you want to live like China? Does that seem appealing? Where are all these professors and seats going to come from? The same tuition rate? Likely not. Again, where does it end?

What? You think donut hole families all went to private school for nothing?!?!! Lmaof.

I am from a donut hole family and went in-state public university. Private was out of the question. It was my only option. I make more than my parents did- but still donut hole—just above the cutoff for financial aid.

Donut hole is often a code for we make a good income and choose to spend it in a way that we aren't saving enough and want to whine about it. We don't do things like vacations to save...

We’ve been saving since my kids were babies. Still don’t won’t have 400k/saved per kid. You need to be well off to save that much PP.

[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.

Exactly. The big problem with higher education is those SOBs living the good life in South Dakota, Kansas, & Arkansas, and then sending their stupid kids to Amherst.

They and their kids are stupid. None of them have never heard of Amherst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just filled out the NPC for Boston College with 180 AGI + 30k untaxed. Total cost of attendance $63K. Not nothing but not $100k.

https://www.bc.edu/content/bc-web/admission/affordability.html

$84,950 is the list price. Why do we need the drama of rounding up to $100K? $85K is bad enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way siblings are calculated for financial aid completely changed. We have kids one grade level apart. We always thought our oldest might be interested in a gap year so we really thought we would have two kids in college during the same 4 year period.

That is what we planned for and unfortunately for us the way financial aid is calculated has completely changed and we are now expected to pay double what we thought, which we are unable to do. So sometimes you plan but the parameters fundamentally change. So if you have multiple kids in college and are expecting some aid, start calculating again.

This. I think it's disgusting that FAFSA changed this.

[Anonymous]

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.

Bs back atcha. We made a lot less (like less than 70k) early on and saved what we could. It didn't count that much against us. Home equity didn't count against us -- we focused on schools that capped or didn't include hone equity. Even a few that did had good NPC numbers. We are middle class, not poor. We have good 529 savings. We also got decent aid at several schools. We focused on private schools where we'd be eligible based on NPCs and targeted state schools that would be more affordable.

My whole point is that no one should expect to cash flow college. You either didn't plan the savings or the college app choices well enough. There are lots of options with different price tags if you make over 300k and didn't save. Barring medical costs or unforeseen financial crises (and those can be included in Fa apps/appeals), I just don't get the rage on this. If we had the means to save 100k per kid going from 70k to 140k over the years, why can't people who make more save more? Even savings of 200k per kid plus loans and some cashflow would cover most schools.

Because most people don't want to be held responsible for their own choices. They wanted to increase their lifestyle as their income increased. So they chose that instead of the responsible act of saving for college. It's a choice---if T20/$90K/year schools are something you want for your family then you plan accordingly. Otherwise you should plan for instate schools and save accordingly. There are people at $200K who have it saved for their kids---why? Because they chose to do it and forgo other things for college savings.

I'm not the person you're responding to, but you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It's not as simple to save for college as you want to pretend. We all have to save for retirement, afford a home, deal with prices increasing every year. Your salary increases often have to absorb the increased cost of living. The tax benefit of 529 is small. The tax benefit of saving fully for your retirement is much better. You can't just forgo other things for college savings. Do you even have college aged kids?

[Anonymous]

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.

Bs back atcha. We made a lot less (like less than 70k) early on and saved what we could. It didn't count that much against us. Home equity didn't count against us -- we focused on schools that capped or didn't include hone equity. Even a few that did had good NPC numbers. We are middle class, not poor. We have good 529 savings. We also got decent aid at several schools. We focused on private schools where we'd be eligible based on NPCs and targeted state schools that would be more affordable.

My whole point is that no one should expect to cash flow college. You either didn't plan the savings or the college app choices well enough. There are lots of options with different price tags if you make over 300k and didn't save. Barring medical costs or unforeseen financial crises (and those can be included in Fa apps/appeals), I just don't get the rage on this. If we had the means to save 100k per kid going from 70k to 140k over the years, why can't people who make more save more? Even savings of 200k per kid plus loans and some cashflow would cover most schools.

Because most people don't want to be held responsible for their own choices. They wanted to increase their lifestyle as their income increased. So they chose that instead of the responsible act of saving for college. It's a choice---if T20/$90K/year schools are something you want for your family then you plan accordingly. Otherwise you should plan for instate schools and save accordingly. There are people at $200K who have it saved for their kids---why? Because they chose to do it and forgo other things for college savings.

I'm not the person you're responding to, but you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It's not as simple to save for college as you want to pretend. We all have to save for retirement, afford a home, deal with prices increasing every year. Your salary increases often have to absorb the increased cost of living. The tax benefit of 529 is small. The tax benefit of saving fully for your retirement is much better. You can't just forgo other things for college savings. Do you even have college aged kids?

You need both. Not paying for college when you can afford it makes you a bad parent. Yes, you can forgo many things with kids.