dont be in the 60th to 99th percentile in income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Also don't save or invest money. Try to spend and live lavishly.

Why? Income is the primary factor in determining college financial aid. All retirement and home assets are typically not considered, and the rest of assets are assessed at 5-6%.

When I filled out the FAFSA or was it CSS it asked for home value. Also asked for last year's 401k contribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what. This isn’t news.

Where have you been hiding if you are surprised by this?

At work (too busy working to earn enough to pay for private high school tuition).

But, come on 60/99% you don’t get aid and can’t demonstrate “need”..

At $150k HHI in the DMV, $85k/year is a major sting!!! If you were in lower bracket, the kid would go for free. There is your answer—that percentile will go broke paying for it and not get $$ from the large endowments at these schools.

At 150K HHI you will get decent aid at private schools. That is my HHI and my kid received over 50% off 80K tuition. Some merit but mostly "grants". ~40K is still a lot of money for us but the net price is no more expensive than the state flagship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what. This isn’t news.

Where have you been hiding if you are surprised by this?

At work (too busy working to earn enough to pay for private high school tuition).

But, come on 60/99% you don’t get aid and can’t demonstrate “need”..

At $150k HHI in the DMV, $85k/year is a major sting!!! If you were in lower bracket, the kid would go for free. There is your answer—that percentile will go broke paying for it and not get $$ from the large endowments at these schools.

At 150K HHI you will get decent aid at private schools. That is my HHI and my kid received over 50% off 80K tuition. Some merit but mostly "grants". ~40K is still a lot of money for us but the net price is no more expensive than the state flagship.

that's true if and only if youre assets are under 500k. and for people who are in their late 40s or early 50s, having 500k in assets outside retirement isn't unusual. the system is old fashioned. think we all work at jobs with 401ks etc. so many MC and UMC people are 1099 workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Also don't save or invest money. Try to spend and live lavishly.

Why? Income is the primary factor in determining college financial aid. All retirement and home assets are typically not considered, and the rest of assets are assessed at 5-6%.

When I filled out the FAFSA or was it CSS it asked for home value. Also asked for last year's 401k contribution.

CSS

[Anonymous]

before I saw this data, I thought that a boost would go to the bottom 20% and it was flat above that. I was very naive.

[Anonymous]

This is good. The middle class owes it to the lower class to join together to overthrow the aristocrats.

Don't let the aristocrats trick you into redirecting the class war to middle-vs-lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is good. The middle class owes it to the lower class to join together to overthrow the aristocrats.

Don't let the aristocrats trick you into redirecting the class war to middle-vs-lower.

Unless there is a Bolshivek type revolution, nothing will change. Those in power will always take.

Also, the middle class doesn't "owe" anything to the lower class.

-signed someone who grew up lower/middle class.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

they are nonprofit, but Private. all non-profit means profits made should be reinvested back into the college. There is no law that says non-profits should not maximize profits.

Sure, but all this talk of "oh we have to charge that much so that we can cover the non rich kids" is BS. If they lowered the costs, more people could afford to pay for it without taking out stupid sized loans.

So what exactly do you propose a university eliminate or reduce to charge lower tuition? Most 80k+ schools have smaller class sizes---so would you prefer your kid sit in lectures with 300-500 kids for most of their classes? That way they can fire 1/3 of the professors. Let's go back to 1 cafeteria on campus for the 6K undergrads and make it just a normal college cafeteria like we had 30+ years ago.....2 entrees, salad bar, cereal and 1 dessert option for each dinner. No specialty dining or options because those truly cost money and it's much cheaper to run a basic cafeteria in one place everyone just has to walk 20 mins to get to.

Forget the new chemistry labs---kids can squeeze 100 into the lab space for their Orgo Chem lab instead of 25---more partners, less learning for you to do hands on.

I suppose I lived without shuttle busses on my campus 30+ years ago, so kids can just walk the 1.5 miles from one end to the other even at -5 degrees and 11pm, same for the campus security/safe walk---we lived without it, kids can today as well.

Yes they can cut some administration salaries, but the fact is universities cost a lot to run. Dorms cost more than apartments because they are not cheap---the RAs/RHD/services provided to help kids on campus cost money. Maintaining old dorms is expensive as well.

A significant chunk of the increase in college costs is administrative salaries and expenses. During college tours, I was struck by the sheer number of support programs that didn’t exist when I was in college. Back then they let you in and it was sink or swim. Now there are countless counseling and tutoring services — study skills, 24 hour writing center, specialized tutoring, identity support groups, etc etc. As I understand it, the goal is to increase graduation rates, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. That’s great, but it’s not cheap, and a largely hidden cost of expanding the populations served by these institutions.

All excellent services that should be available for college students. Happy to pay for those, incase my kid needs it. If this helps disadvantaged students make it thru college in 4-5 years, I'm happy to pay. The benefits for getting those students thru college and onto great careers is too good to give up. Adjusting to college and navigating your way thru is much more challenging for an 18yo whose parents didn't attend college, the lack of home support can be huge. Add in often times lower income and the issues/stress of worrying how to pay for everything is added stress many do not understand.

Good for you, I'd rather avoid the decades of debt and forgo the counseling services.

Not to mention that student debt is a huge driver of mental illness in adulthood. Saddle a 20 year old with 100k in debt and watch what happens ..(nothing good)

Or find a path that is affordable to you. CC then onto a 4 year university. Or better yet, if your kid is a candidate for an $80K university, they likely can handle DE in HS and graduate HS with their AA and the only cost is lab fees and books, so essentially getting your AA for under $2K. Then 2 years at university.

Yeah OK you can do that but now you gotta struggle with the mental burden of "my kid is eating meat loaf when other people's kids are eating prime rib" and "will my kids think I don't love them if they have to eat meat loaf because I refused to put prime rib on the credit card?".

Well that is a YOU problem. If you'd rather have $200K in debt to pay off just so you "look good to everyone else" then you are an idiot and need therapy, which you wont be able to afford as you saddle yourself with massive debt to "keep up with the joneses"
There will always be someone who "has it better than you". I would hope you have raised your kids to know that you live within your means and don't give a damn about what others do.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

they are nonprofit, but Private. all non-profit means profits made should be reinvested back into the college. There is no law that says non-profits should not maximize profits.

Sure, but all this talk of "oh we have to charge that much so that we can cover the non rich kids" is BS. If they lowered the costs, more people could afford to pay for it without taking out stupid sized loans.

So what exactly do you propose a university eliminate or reduce to charge lower tuition? Most 80k+ schools have smaller class sizes---so would you prefer your kid sit in lectures with 300-500 kids for most of their classes? That way they can fire 1/3 of the professors. Let's go back to 1 cafeteria on campus for the 6K undergrads and make it just a normal college cafeteria like we had 30+ years ago.....2 entrees, salad bar, cereal and 1 dessert option for each dinner. No specialty dining or options because those truly cost money and it's much cheaper to run a basic cafeteria in one place everyone just has to walk 20 mins to get to.

Forget the new chemistry labs---kids can squeeze 100 into the lab space for their Orgo Chem lab instead of 25---more partners, less learning for you to do hands on.

I suppose I lived without shuttle busses on my campus 30+ years ago, so kids can just walk the 1.5 miles from one end to the other even at -5 degrees and 11pm, same for the campus security/safe walk---we lived without it, kids can today as well.

Yes they can cut some administration salaries, but the fact is universities cost a lot to run. Dorms cost more than apartments because they are not cheap---the RAs/RHD/services provided to help kids on campus cost money. Maintaining old dorms is expensive as well.

A significant chunk of the increase in college costs is administrative salaries and expenses. During college tours, I was struck by the sheer number of support programs that didn’t exist when I was in college. Back then they let you in and it was sink or swim. Now there are countless counseling and tutoring services — study skills, 24 hour writing center, specialized tutoring, identity support groups, etc etc. As I understand it, the goal is to increase graduation rates, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. That’s great, but it’s not cheap, and a largely hidden cost of expanding the populations served by these institutions.

All excellent services that should be available for college students. Happy to pay for those, incase my kid needs it. If this helps disadvantaged students make it thru college in 4-5 years, I'm happy to pay. The benefits for getting those students thru college and onto great careers is too good to give up. Adjusting to college and navigating your way thru is much more challenging for an 18yo whose parents didn't attend college, the lack of home support can be huge. Add in often times lower income and the issues/stress of worrying how to pay for everything is added stress many do not understand.

Good for you, I'd rather avoid the decades of debt and forgo the counseling services.

Not to mention that student debt is a huge driver of mental illness in adulthood. Saddle a 20 year old with 100k in debt and watch what happens ..(nothing good)

Or find a path that is affordable to you. CC then onto a 4 year university. Or better yet, if your kid is a candidate for an $80K university, they likely can handle DE in HS and graduate HS with their AA and the only cost is lab fees and books, so essentially getting your AA for under $2K. Then 2 years at university. My state has several schools with high admission rates (ie if you have a 3.5+ UW gpa you will get admitted) that offer virtually most majors (including CS and engineering)---those schools are less than $25K all in per year. If you are a good student, you can get the costs down to ~$20K or less. A kid can earn $10K per year to contribute fairly easily with minimum wages being over $13+. That leaves $10K/year and ~$5K of that can be the federal student loans. So ~$5K for the family to come up with. At most you can graduate with $40K in student loans.
If a kid takes the DE approach, then it's $2K for the AA in HS and $20K/year for 2 years, so at most $20K in student loans.
See---there is a way to not burden yourself with loans for college. Why would you saddle yourself with $100K+ in student debt? It's a choice to do that---but you can choose another path.

Even someone making $40K/year should be able to manage $20K in student loans spread over 10 years--only $222/month. And that is if the kid has no parental/family help with college (besides co-signing the extra loans). If parents can help with $4-5K, the kid might only need $10K total for the 2 years or $20K total for a 4 year university. And in reality, $10K kid earning per year is low---if you work all summer, all breaks and have a PT job while in college (8-10 hours/week) you could earn close to $15K/year.

In reality, that is the smart approach----yes, it is not smart to go into major debt. People need to learn that and stop doing it. There are good choices that are more affordable, and if you are an excellent student, many of the private schools (not T50) will give you excellent merit to attract you to matriculate

TLDR, but if you're saying we should make loans for education illegal, I'm here for it. Minors should not take on this kind of debt, even if someone signs on their behalf.

College students are NOT minors, except maybe for the first month or two of freshman year. They are adults.
And the student loans an undergrad can access by themselves is limited to ~$27K over the 4 years. Those should NOT be illegal. That amount is reasonable for most college educated people to pay off in 10 years. I personally would not have been able to attend college without them (35 years ago). I came out with $11K in loans for my 4 years....started at $37K and paid those loans off in 1.5 years. It just meant continuing to live like a college kid for a few more years---well worth the price of a college education.


What should not be allowed is the parental loans, but you cannot stop banks from offering them---people signing are ADULTS and should be held to what they sign up for. Many parents sign for these loans with an agreement with their undergrads that the kid will take over the loans when they graduate----that is on the parents---nobody should burden their kid with that.

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/dkthomp/status/1684162455134679040?s=46&t=RXug2E3wPuDEf8vlgSC9SQ

The usual suspects follow the stereotypes

The surprising one here is Princeton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Also don't save or invest money. Try to spend and live lavishly.

Why? Income is the primary factor in determining college financial aid. All retirement and home assets are typically not considered, and the rest of assets are assessed at 5-6%.

Because 75% of Americans apparently feel entitled to live a lifestyle better than what they can afford. They do not understand how to live within their means. I see it with friends and family. My kids did not have their own phone until MS and even then the first one was an old flip phone---my oldest's request was one with a full keyboard so they didn't have to hit aaa to type C.
Meanwhile their younger cousins already had Smartphones and would consistently get new ones every 1-2 years. They got the latest/greatest technology no matter what the cost. If you apply that to all aspects of life, many cannot really afford to do that and should have been saving that money (in this case, yes that family should have been saving---parent is now 68, retired, still living above their means and literally 100Ks in debt yet still living in the fanciest, most expensive place because they "deserve it"/"you only live once" despite the fact they cannot pay their bills....and this is someone who was once worth $10M+, they just blew it all to keep up with their friends/neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Also don't save or invest money. Try to spend and live lavishly.

Why? Income is the primary factor in determining college financial aid. All retirement and home assets are typically not considered, and the rest of assets are assessed at 5-6%.

When I filled out the FAFSA or was it CSS it asked for home value. Also asked for last year's 401k contribution.

Those only factor in a very small amount. Income is a much larger factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what. This isn’t news.

Where have you been hiding if you are surprised by this?

At work (too busy working to earn enough to pay for private high school tuition).

But, come on 60/99% you don’t get aid and can’t demonstrate “need”..

At $150k HHI in the DMV, $85k/year is a major sting!!! If you were in lower bracket, the kid would go for free. There is your answer—that percentile will go broke paying for it and not get $$ from the large endowments at these schools.

At 150K HHI you will get decent aid at private schools. That is my HHI and my kid received over 50% off 80K tuition. Some merit but mostly "grants". ~40K is still a lot of money for us but the net price is no more expensive than the state flagship.

DIng, ding, ding!!! And if you step down another tier (based on your kid's stats) you could likely find even more merit bringing costs down to $25K or less. When people say "college is not affordable" they are often only looking at the elite schools who don't give merit. Step down and your smart kid can attend for reasonable costs. You just have to decide if it's worth $200-300K in debt or not to attend an elite school. Personally, If you are that smart, it seems obvious you would choose the affordable choice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what. This isn’t news.

Where have you been hiding if you are surprised by this?

At work (too busy working to earn enough to pay for private high school tuition).

But, come on 60/99% you don’t get aid and can’t demonstrate “need”..

At $150k HHI in the DMV, $85k/year is a major sting!!! If you were in lower bracket, the kid would go for free. There is your answer—that percentile will go broke paying for it and not get $$ from the large endowments at these schools.

At 150K HHI you will get decent aid at private schools. That is my HHI and my kid received over 50% off 80K tuition. Some merit but mostly "grants". ~40K is still a lot of money for us but the net price is no more expensive than the state flagship.

DIng, ding, ding!!! And if you step down another tier (based on your kid's stats) you could likely find even more merit bringing costs down to $25K or less. When people say "college is not affordable" they are often only looking at the elite schools who don't give merit. Step down and your smart kid can attend for reasonable costs. You just have to decide if it's worth $200-300K in debt or not to attend an elite school. Personally, If you are that smart, it seems obvious you would choose the affordable choice

uh.. ok, but if the kid goes to private school from k-12, then college, that's 17 years of $25K or less per year. That amounts to 325,000 just for k-12, and then another 100,000 for college. Total $425K. That's a lot for $150K HHI. And that's just one kid.

our HHI is about $300K, and that's crazy to me. I wouldn't pay $80K/year for college, either. DC is going to a state flagship with merit, thank goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Also don't save or invest money. Try to spend and live lavishly.

Why? Income is the primary factor in determining college financial aid. All retirement and home assets are typically not considered, and the rest of assets are assessed at 5-6%.

When I filled out the FAFSA or was it CSS it asked for home value. Also asked for last year's 401k contribution.

Home assets are definitely considered.