The New America: Elite Privates forever out of reach for UMC?

[Anonymous]

Not PP, and I would like a beach house, too - but cannot afford one.

The NPC for Yale (where my DC was admitted) for us said $68K. Yale offered $5500 in student loans and work-study. That's it.

Among those from families earning $200-250k, 72% in the class of 2021 received financial aid. The median "scholarship" was $27,152 and the median net cost was $45,051. Yale does not include any student loans in their financial aid packages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not PP, and I would like a beach house, too - but cannot afford one.

The NPC for Yale (where my DC was admitted) for us said $68K. Yale offered $5500 in student loans and work-study. That's it.

Among those from families earning $200-250k, 72% in the class of 2021 received financial aid. The median "scholarship" was $27,152 and the median net cost was $45,051. Yale does not include any student loans in their financial aid packages.

Interesting point about loans. So was the PP lying or misinformed?

[Anonymous]

Here' the actual data from Yale. Where's the doughnut hole?

Who qualifies for aid?

Every family’s financial situation is unique, but the table below can give you an idea of typical awards. The table shows median financial aid awards for families of first-year students in the Class of 2021 who applied for financial aid.

Class of 2021 First-Year Students
Annual Income Range Median Net Cost* Median Scholarship Percentage Who Qualified for Aid
Less than $65,000 $3,450 $74,732 99%
$65,000-$100,000 $5,538 $72,217 96%
$100,000-$150,000 $15,298 $57,856 93%
$150,000-$200,000 $34,005 $37,542 85%
$200,000-$250,000 $45,051 $27,165 72%
> than $250,000** $52,102 $19,817 23%

*Net Cost is the difference between the Estimated Cost of Attendance (tuition, room, board, books, travel expenses and personal expenses) and a student’s scholarship grant(s) from all sources. Yale financial aid awards include a standardized Student Effort, which is an option to meet Net Cost.

** Most who qualify have multiple children in college.

https://finaid.yale.edu/costs-affordability/affordability

[Anonymous]

I don't know what Yale means by "typical assets." Our house is paid off and our HHI is $240K. We have about a year's worth of living expenses in a savings account per our financial planner's advice (the FP also advised us to have the house paid off by the time DH was 65), and we have retirement savings.

I'm 60 and DH will be 65 this year, and has Parkinson's - he will retire in the next year or so. We certainly expect he will need long-term care, which neither FAFSA nor the CSS contemplate. He has other health issues that have made him ineligible for long-term care insurance (and for that matter, for disability insurance other than what he has at work). Dementia and longevity run in both of our families.

We can pay about $50K/year per kid for college, and no more.

I anticipate that DCUM will tell us to use everything we have outside of retirement accounts, including our home equity, but our FP (and any others who know what they are talking about) would disagree.

OK, so what we have here is a family who has (i) a paid off house; (ii) tens of thousands of dollars in a savings account; (iii) approximately $400,000 in college savings for 2 kids; (iv) and makes $240,000 each year (with no mortgage).

And this family is complaining that it is just so unfair that they are not getting aid sufficient that their kid could attend one of the top colleges in the country, debt-free.

If this doesn't demonstrate how ridiculous many of these complaints are, I don't know what does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m almost 60 and I totally agree with the OP. The sticker price hike over the last 40 years is a shame. My parents struggled but they were able to pay for a SLAC for me without forfeiting their home or retirement funds or inheritances.

What bothers me is the expectation that my family should be one of the very very few that pays full price even though we are not wealthy-wealthy like those families around us who drive new cars and vacation all over the world and dress well and renovate their homes and have vacation homes and eat out whenever they want and etc.

We’re living on one federal salary and we will have two kids in college next year. We’re applying but in spite of those quotes from top colleges’ websites I don’t expect any aid because (1) my in-laws left a little money to my spouse (2j we’ve been contributing to our retirement funds over the four decades we’ve worked, which makes us look rich and c) inside the beltway a normal house in a good school district is very pricy.

A lot of it has to do with being older parents in an expensive town. If we were doing this at age 40 in flyover country we could look poor, get college aid for our kids, work 25 more years, and then really enjoy our golden years once the kids were gone.

Okay, I’m ready to get roasted.

Well I, for one, will give you credit for being honest and at least understanding the other side.

I'll not roast you but simply ask you how you think it should work? (and we all agree costs for privates are too high)

I think you're underestimating the sophistication of private colleges' financial aid offices. 1, they don't consider retirement assets (though they are reported), 2, they consider your age and years of income-production afterwards, 3, they consider the cost of living of your location and tend not to consider the value of your primary residence (though this varies).

The inherited money is an unusual thing, but it would only be considered at about 8% of its value if you haven't rolled it into retirement accounts. And considering that the median inheritance is 69k (divided up among kids so even less per person) 8% of that really isn't a lot. And if you inherited more than that, it is a windfall.

Not 16:09, but I agree with them. You are mostly right about the financial aid approach (e.g. retirement isn't a consideration - but CSS schools do take home equity into account), but that doesn't speak to the comment that it is a shame that costs have risen so dramatically faster than inflation over the last 40 years. There is NO reason for that to be the case.

PP's comment that

"(w)hat bothers me is the expectation that my family should be one of the very very few that pays full price even though we are not wealthy-wealthy like those families around us who drive new cars and vacation all over the world and dress well and renovate their homes and have vacation homes and eat out whenever they want and etc."

resonates with me because we are in the same boat. I'm 61, DH is 65, we have a lot of equity in our house. We have saved aggressively for college and lived pretty modestly to prioritize those savings. Our HHI is upper middle class, for sure - and therefore we are expected to pay full price. Although we have saved for twenty years, we cannot pay $600,000 in post-tax dollars for our kids' undergraduate degrees - we just can't. If we do that, we jeopardize our own security in retirement, and given the lack of any social safety net in this country, high healthcare costs, the high cost of long-term care (longevity and dementia run in both of our families), and our unwillingness to become a burden on our kids, we just cannot afford to take that risk.

Most of the people on this thread are saying that (1) no one is entitled to an education at an elite school, and/or (2) choose something you can afford. Indeed, our kids ultimately chose schools we can afford, and they are making it work. But to PP's point, were the economics of paying for private college the same or similar to what they were in the 70s, our savings over the years would have covered everything just fine at schools that probably would have met their needs better.

It is insane that costs have soared to such an extent that only the very wealthy and those who qualify for need-based financial aid can attend elite schools. One can both accept and deal with this reality, and be disappointed and outraged by it.

If you have saved aggressively for 20 years, you can pay a substantial portion of $600,000. You, or your kids, can take out loans for the rest (and a lot of people, including me, did that 30 years ago).

This notion that if you can't comfortably pay full price for an elite college, you deserve aid, and it's unfair if you don't get it, is ludicrous. As for this: "It is insane that costs have soared to such an extent that only the very wealthy and those who qualify for need-based financial aid can attend elite schools." That's a false dichotomy. It isn't true. You can attend. You may need ot take out loans. That you are not willing to do that does *not* mean that your kid cannot attend. It's your, and her, choice.

It’s almost like people *gasp!* reach their peak earnings around the time their kids go to college, and weren’t making that $220K income (or whatever) to “save aggressively”.

They have $400,000 in college savings, for 2 kids. That's quite a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not PP, and I would like a beach house, too - but cannot afford one.

The NPC for Yale (where my DC was admitted) for us said $68K. Yale offered $5500 in student loans and work-study. That's it.

Among those from families earning $200-250k, 72% in the class of 2021 received financial aid. The median "scholarship" was $27,152 and the median net cost was $45,051. Yale does not include any student loans in their financial aid packages.

Interesting point about loans. So was the PP lying or misinformed?

No, Yale and the other elite colleges have a "student effort" or "student contribution" component of their financial aid package that roughly equals the non-billed expenses (books, personal expenses, and travel expenses) included in the cost of attendance. Some students choose not to earn and save that component and take out loans instead. Yale and the other no-loan schools facilitate student loans in those cases and for those who wish to take out loans instead of paying the entire parent contribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Calm down Marie Antoinette. People are not judging you for your decision, whatever it is. I'm not even clear if you have a kid or not as it doesn't seem like you've talked about their experiences. But going nyah nyah nyah when other people openly talk about their experiences and saying they can't afford Yale and walking away is something that you somehow are taking very personally and defensive about, to the point you openly challenge their experiences and even implying they're fraudulent and then still slapping them in the face with claims of privilege.

First: You need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution. I think you misunderstand which side you are on.

Second: I mentioned previously I am full pay X2. My choice, I do not hold anyone to my financial values.

But when people say they are pissed because the most generous schools on the planet are unaffordable, they ignore the fact that 99.9% of the families in the world don't get to make that choice for many reasons. That's what offends me. Don't come in here and dump on the most generous colleges, who moved hard to need-based aid over the past years, to justify your choice. Think about the people who have real hardships and no assets, and can't afford their state directional because the governments are choking the funds. I actually can't believe this is even a discussion. What about those kids?

I'm going to stop now, because I am repeating myself. I will return if the poster wants to show the actual data and I will run the NPC again.

Well said, PP.

I'm scratching my head reading a lot of the comments here. I think we would likely all agree that the staggering costs of college today are a bad thing, and we would all welcome reform. But the people with $200,000 plus incomes (or those with lower incomes, but lots of assets not including retirement) acting as if they have some special, serious hardship because they can't afford to send their kid to the most elite schools in the country need to look at the actual hardships faced by most of the country and the world. If you want to complain that very rich families have more options than regular rich families, that's your prerogative, and the some goes if you are bitter that a tiny handful of low income people with very bright kids have access to something your rich kids don't. But you should understand that many of us find your sense of entitlement to be offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Calm down Marie Antoinette. People are not judging you for your decision, whatever it is. I'm not even clear if you have a kid or not as it doesn't seem like you've talked about their experiences. But going nyah nyah nyah when other people openly talk about their experiences and saying they can't afford Yale and walking away is something that you somehow are taking very personally and defensive about, to the point you openly challenge their experiences and even implying they're fraudulent and then still slapping them in the face with claims of privilege.

First: You need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution. I think you misunderstand which side you are on.

Second: I mentioned previously I am full pay X2. My choice, I do not hold anyone to my financial values.

But when people say they are pissed because the most generous schools on the planet are unaffordable, they ignore the fact that 99.9% of the families in the world don't get to make that choice for many reasons. That's what offends me. Don't come in here and dump on the most generous colleges, who moved hard to need-based aid over the past years, to justify your choice. Think about the people who have real hardships and no assets, and can't afford their state directional because the governments are choking the funds. I actually can't believe this is even a discussion. What about those kids?

I'm going to stop now, because I am repeating myself. I will return if the poster wants to show the actual data and I will run the NPC again.

Well said, PP.

I'm scratching my head reading a lot of the comments here. I think we would likely all agree that the staggering costs of college today are a bad thing, and we would all welcome reform. But the people with $200,000 plus incomes (or those with lower incomes, but lots of assets not including retirement) acting as if they have some special, serious hardship because they can't afford to send their kid to the most elite schools in the country need to look at the actual hardships faced by most of the country and the world. If you want to complain that very rich families have more options than regular rich families, that's your prerogative, and the some goes if you are bitter that a tiny handful of low income people with very bright kids have access to something your rich kids don't. But you should understand that many of us find your sense of entitlement to be offensive.

Is that what's really going on here? I don't see that at all. I see posters firmly saying we can't afford X college for Y reasons. They're not whining. They're stating something specific. But apparently they're not allowed to express regret either without people jumping on their toes.

What is whining are the posters saying "how dare you say you can't afford X college when you make Y amount" and ignore all the many many many reasons why that can be the case. That's where Marie Antoinette steps in - the utter cluelessness to how other people can have obstacles or obligations despite a comfortable income. And those illustrate the flaws to the financial aid calculators.

As you said, most if not all of us agree the high tuition bills are ridiculous and scandalous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Calm down Marie Antoinette. People are not judging you for your decision, whatever it is. I'm not even clear if you have a kid or not as it doesn't seem like you've talked about their experiences. But going nyah nyah nyah when other people openly talk about their experiences and saying they can't afford Yale and walking away is something that you somehow are taking very personally and defensive about, to the point you openly challenge their experiences and even implying they're fraudulent and then still slapping them in the face with claims of privilege.

First: You need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution. I think you misunderstand which side you are on.

Second: I mentioned previously I am full pay X2. My choice, I do not hold anyone to my financial values.

But when people say they are pissed because the most generous schools on the planet are unaffordable, they ignore the fact that 99.9% of the families in the world don't get to make that choice for many reasons. That's what offends me. Don't come in here and dump on the most generous colleges, who moved hard to need-based aid over the past years, to justify your choice. Think about the people who have real hardships and no assets, and can't afford their state directional because the governments are choking the funds. I actually can't believe this is even a discussion. What about those kids?

I'm going to stop now, because I am repeating myself. I will return if the poster wants to show the actual data and I will run the NPC again.

Well said, PP.

I'm scratching my head reading a lot of the comments here. I think we would likely all agree that the staggering costs of college today are a bad thing, and we would all welcome reform. But the people with $200,000 plus incomes (or those with lower incomes, but lots of assets not including retirement) acting as if they have some special, serious hardship because they can't afford to send their kid to the most elite schools in the country need to look at the actual hardships faced by most of the country and the world. If you want to complain that very rich families have more options than regular rich families, that's your prerogative, and the some goes if you are bitter that a tiny handful of low income people with very bright kids have access to something your rich kids don't. But you should understand that many of us find your sense of entitlement to be offensive.

Is that what's really going on here? I don't see that at all. I see posters firmly saying we can't afford X college for Y reasons. They're not whining. They're stating something specific. But apparently they're not allowed to express regret either without people jumping on their toes.

What is whining are the posters saying "how dare you say you can't afford X college when you make Y amount" and ignore all the many many many reasons why that can be the case. That's where Marie Antoinette steps in - the utter cluelessness to how other people can have obstacles or obligations despite a comfortable income. And those illustrate the flaws to the financial aid calculators.

As you said, most if not all of us agree the high tuition bills are ridiculous and scandalous.

You left something out of the bolded - those same posters (or many of them) are lamenting that they don't get aid to allow them to afford those colleges. They're claiming it's unfair for elite institutions to charge them the sticker price, while they give others who have even less money aid.

That's absurd, bordering on offensive.

And I agree with a PP - your knowledge of the French Revolution is . . . spotty, at best. Here's a hint - it was not about people with comfortable income having obstacles or obligations. FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at this issue from a historical perspective, I think we would find that it's only been within the last two or three generations (depending on how you count) that private colleges were anything but the province of the wealthy and well connected. Back in the day these schools offered scholarships to young bootstrappers but didn't consider an obligation to be accessible to the general public. I would warrant that this is how things are going to be moving forward.

The 50 years following WWII is proving to be a time of unusually broad-based prosperity rather than the new normal for generations to come.

+1 Ivy leagues weren't hard to get into then academically either. It was more about social standing than merit. Post war broad-based prosperity was this unique result of demographics, economics and some sound policy decisions (e.g., GI Bill)--it's not the default. It's going to take some serious policy shifts to retain a broad middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know what Yale means by "typical assets." Our house is paid off and our HHI is $240K. We have about a year's worth of living expenses in a savings account per our financial planner's advice (the FP also advised us to have the house paid off by the time DH was 65), and we have retirement savings.

I'm 60 and DH will be 65 this year, and has Parkinson's - he will retire in the next year or so. We certainly expect he will need long-term care, which neither FAFSA nor the CSS contemplate. He has other health issues that have made him ineligible for long-term care insurance (and for that matter, for disability insurance other than what he has at work). Dementia and longevity run in both of our families.

We can pay about $50K/year per kid for college, and no more.

I anticipate that DCUM will tell us to use everything we have outside of retirement accounts, including our home equity, but our FP (and any others who know what they are talking about) would disagree.

OK, so what we have here is a family who has (i) a paid off house; (ii) tens of thousands of dollars in a savings account; (iii) approximately $400,000 in college savings for 2 kids; (iv) and makes $240,000 each year (with no mortgage).

And this family is complaining that it is just so unfair that they are not getting aid sufficient that their kid could attend one of the top colleges in the country, debt-free.

If this doesn't demonstrate how ridiculous many of these complaints are, I don't know what does.

What you're not taking into the account is the other side of the equation - namely, that Yale has a 25 BILLION dollar endowment. They don't need any student's money. The fact that they still want to shake every last possible penny out of a well-off but by no means astronomically rich family like the PP here is absurd, ridiculous, predatory, and objectionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Calm down Marie Antoinette. People are not judging you for your decision, whatever it is. I'm not even clear if you have a kid or not as it doesn't seem like you've talked about their experiences. But going nyah nyah nyah when other people openly talk about their experiences and saying they can't afford Yale and walking away is something that you somehow are taking very personally and defensive about, to the point you openly challenge their experiences and even implying they're fraudulent and then still slapping them in the face with claims of privilege.

First: You need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution. I think you misunderstand which side you are on.

Second: I mentioned previously I am full pay X2. My choice, I do not hold anyone to my financial values.

But when people say they are pissed because the most generous schools on the planet are unaffordable, they ignore the fact that 99.9% of the families in the world don't get to make that choice for many reasons. That's what offends me. Don't come in here and dump on the most generous colleges, who moved hard to need-based aid over the past years, to justify your choice. Think about the people who have real hardships and no assets, and can't afford their state directional because the governments are choking the funds. I actually can't believe this is even a discussion. What about those kids?

I'm going to stop now, because I am repeating myself. I will return if the poster wants to show the actual data and I will run the NPC again.

Well said, PP.

I'm scratching my head reading a lot of the comments here. I think we would likely all agree that the staggering costs of college today are a bad thing, and we would all welcome reform. But the people with $200,000 plus incomes (or those with lower incomes, but lots of assets not including retirement) acting as if they have some special, serious hardship because they can't afford to send their kid to the most elite schools in the country need to look at the actual hardships faced by most of the country and the world. If you want to complain that very rich families have more options than regular rich families, that's your prerogative, and the some goes if you are bitter that a tiny handful of low income people with very bright kids have access to something your rich kids don't. But you should understand that many of us find your sense of entitlement to be offensive.

Is that what's really going on here? I don't see that at all. I see posters firmly saying we can't afford X college for Y reasons. They're not whining. They're stating something specific. But apparently they're not allowed to express regret either without people jumping on their toes.

What is whining are the posters saying "how dare you say you can't afford X college when you make Y amount" and ignore all the many many many reasons why that can be the case. That's where Marie Antoinette steps in - the utter cluelessness to how other people can have obstacles or obligations despite a comfortable income. And those illustrate the flaws to the financial aid calculators.

As you said, most if not all of us agree the high tuition bills are ridiculous and scandalous.

You left something out of the bolded - those same posters (or many of them) are lamenting that they don't get aid to allow them to afford those colleges. They're claiming it's unfair for elite institutions to charge them the sticker price, while they give others who have even less money aid.

That's absurd, bordering on offensive.

Nah. Where the cutoff for aid should be is a perfectly legitimate issue for debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

you clearly don't know what poor means. Even CC is out of reach for the truly poor.

Ivies are out of reach for me at full price and I make $240k. So in the context of this discussion, I am poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know what Yale means by "typical assets." Our house is paid off and our HHI is $240K. We have about a year's worth of living expenses in a savings account per our financial planner's advice (the FP also advised us to have the house paid off by the time DH was 65), and we have retirement savings.

I'm 60 and DH will be 65 this year, and has Parkinson's - he will retire in the next year or so. We certainly expect he will need long-term care, which neither FAFSA nor the CSS contemplate. He has other health issues that have made him ineligible for long-term care insurance (and for that matter, for disability insurance other than what he has at work). Dementia and longevity run in both of our families.

We can pay about $50K/year per kid for college, and no more.

I anticipate that DCUM will tell us to use everything we have outside of retirement accounts, including our home equity, but our FP (and any others who know what they are talking about) would disagree.

OK, so what we have here is a family who has (i) a paid off house; (ii) tens of thousands of dollars in a savings account; (iii) approximately $400,000 in college savings for 2 kids; (iv) and makes $240,000 each year (with no mortgage).

And this family is complaining that it is just so unfair that they are not getting aid sufficient that their kid could attend one of the top colleges in the country, debt-free.

If this doesn't demonstrate how ridiculous many of these complaints are, I don't know what does.

What you're not taking into the account is the other side of the equation - namely, that Yale has a 25 BILLION dollar endowment. They don't need any student's money. The fact that they still want to shake every last possible penny out of a well-off but by no means astronomically rich family like the PP here is absurd, ridiculous, predatory, and objectionable.

If you don't like the game, don't play.

[Anonymous]

The elite privates used to be only for the elite, and now they are reverting back.