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

[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.

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.

They apparently aren't getting aid to afford the colleges. Why is feeling that it's a bit unfair something to be mocked? Just curious. Yes, life is unfair, but not being able to complain it's unfair is also, well, unfair.

[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.

Expecting people in the top 5%? 3%? of Americans to pay for their elite private education is predatory? Objectionable? All aid should be tailored so that it makes up the difference between what a family has saved for college and the tuition cost?

This is a *private* college. There are literally hundreds of other, less costly choices. No one who (i) can get into Yale, and (ii) whose parents have saved $200,000 for college education is going to be denied an undergraduate degree.

You're being silly.

[Anonymous]

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

Reverting back to over 70% getting aid? Are you high?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course it is. And people take ridiculous, offensive positions in connection with legitimate issues all the time. That's what's happening here. Just because something is a legitimate issue for debate does not mean that all opinions in connection with it deserve equal (or any) consideration. Some deserve ridicule.

[Anonymous]

This is people who live under the delusion that they got where they are, attending elite schools, through meritocracy, rather than privilege, getting slapped in the face with reality.

MOST KIDS for the past 50 years who were "worthy" of T20 schools could not go. They didn't even apply.

Posters here clearly did apply and go. They had savvy parents who encouraged them to apply, could afford the tuition, and made it work.

Now they think, hey my kid is "worthy" but something is in my way. It must be (1) new and different (2) unfair.

No, it's how it's always been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A private jet is out of reach for me at full price and I make $500K. So in the context of that discussion, I am poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A private jet is out of reach for me at full price and I make $500K. So in the context of that discussion, I am poor.

Indeed. You will have to fly commercial with the other peasants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Expecting people in the top 5%? 3%? of Americans to pay for their elite private education is predatory? Objectionable? All aid should be tailored so that it makes up the difference between what a family has saved for college and the tuition cost? [Yes, because that "elite" institution is actually a mega-wealthy corporation that is preying on the upper middle class - and it's not OK to prey on the UMC just because they are not "poor".]

This is a *private* college. There are literally hundreds of other, less costly choices. [It is a large, very wealthy corporation that receives considerable government support both directly and indirectly. They should not be allowed to just do whatever they want and exploit whoever they want. And this is not about "just go somewhere else, it'll be just as good". If we say "tough shit, go somewhere else" to UMC kids then we should say the same to minority and truly poor kids too. ]

No one who (i) can get into Yale, and (ii) whose parents have saved $200,000 for college education is going to be denied an undergraduate degree.

You're being silly. [You are being illogical.]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is people who live under the delusion that they got where they are, attending elite schools, through meritocracy, rather than privilege, getting slapped in the face with reality.

MOST KIDS for the past 50 years who were "worthy" of T20 schools could not go. They didn't even apply.

Posters here clearly did apply and go. They had savvy parents who encouraged them to apply, could afford the tuition, and made it work.

Now they think, hey my kid is "worthy" but something is in my way. It must be (1) new and different (2) unfair.

No, it's how it's always been.

You are resorting to a false equivalency. I can see where your thinking is coming from and it's a corrupted way of thinking. You're not arguing for things to be made more equitable, you're defending the shifting of one perceived privilege to a different perceived privilege. You're effectively justifying today's inequity because things were inequitable in the past. And it's likely because you have a material interest in the current system and resent implications there's something wrong with it. The rich can still easily afford college, the poor get financial aid if they game the system, the middle classes get it harder and harder and people like you only scream and rant "privilege" in their faces while the real privilege, ie the rich, are utterly unaffected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is people who live under the delusion that they got where they are, attending elite schools, through meritocracy, rather than privilege, getting slapped in the face with reality.

MOST KIDS for the past 50 years who were "worthy" of T20 schools could not go. They didn't even apply.

Posters here clearly did apply and go. They had savvy parents who encouraged them to apply, could afford the tuition, and made it work.

Now they think, hey my kid is "worthy" but something is in my way. It must be (1) new and different (2) unfair.

No, it's how it's always been.

You are resorting to a false equivalency. I can see where your thinking is coming from and it's a corrupted way of thinking. You're not arguing for things to be made more equitable, you're defending the shifting of one perceived privilege to a different perceived privilege. You're effectively justifying today's inequity because things were inequitable in the past. And it's likely because you have a material interest in the current system and resent implications there's something wrong with it. The rich can still easily afford college, the poor get financial aid if they game the system, the middle classes get it harder and harder and people like you only scream and rant "privilege" in their faces while the real privilege, ie the rich, are utterly unaffected.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

The aforementioned $210K income family is at the 92nd percentile and arguing it should be changed to benefit them more than the 91% below them.

This is your definition of "inequity".


(ps claiming the poor "game the system" is so freaking incredible to me I almost believe you are a troll. I genuinely hope you are as I do not want to think actual people can think as you claim to. It would make me lose my lunch.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is people who live under the delusion that they got where they are, attending elite schools, through meritocracy, rather than privilege, getting slapped in the face with reality.

MOST KIDS for the past 50 years who were "worthy" of T20 schools could not go. They didn't even apply.

Posters here clearly did apply and go. They had savvy parents who encouraged them to apply, could afford the tuition, and made it work.

Now they think, hey my kid is "worthy" but something is in my way. It must be (1) new and different (2) unfair.

No, it's how it's always been.

You are resorting to a false equivalency. I can see where your thinking is coming from and it's a corrupted way of thinking. You're not arguing for things to be made more equitable, you're defending the shifting of one perceived privilege to a different perceived privilege. You're effectively justifying today's inequity because things were inequitable in the past. And it's likely because you have a material interest in the current system and resent implications there's something wrong with it. The rich can still easily afford college, the poor get financial aid if they game the system, the middle classes get it harder and harder and people like you only scream and rant "privilege" in their faces while the real privilege, ie the rich, are utterly unaffected.

1) That's not what false equivalency means, I'm explaining history and attitudes.
2) Things are more equitable than ever in the sense that people are asked to pay what they can afford, as determined by a formula, including rich people paying proportionally more, which they should be able to.
3) I personally would be better off with the "old" way since I am full pay.
4) "People like me" are the "real" rich people who are unaffected either way but that doesn't make your belly-aching any more justified. Why should I subsidize someone making over $200k? Let's both pay sticker and subsidize people who can't afford it by making some lifestyle cutbacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Expecting people in the top 5%? 3%? of Americans to pay for their elite private education is predatory? Objectionable? All aid should be tailored so that it makes up the difference between what a family has saved for college and the tuition cost? [Yes, because that "elite" institution is actually a mega-wealthy corporation that is preying on the upper middle class - and it's not OK to prey on the UMC just because they are not "poor".]

This is a *private* college. There are literally hundreds of other, less costly choices. [It is a large, very wealthy corporation that receives considerable government support both directly and indirectly. They should not be allowed to just do whatever they want and exploit whoever they want. And this is not about "just go somewhere else, it'll be just as good". If we say "tough shit, go somewhere else" to UMC kids then we should say the same to minority and truly poor kids too. ]

No one who (i) can get into Yale, and (ii) whose parents have saved $200,000 for college education is going to be denied an undergraduate degree.

You're being silly. [You are being illogical.]

That entire response was nonsense, but I want to pull out one particularly odious comment that really encapsulates the moral bankruptcy at work here:

If we say "tough shit, go somewhere else" to UMC kids then we should say the same to minority and truly poor kids too.

I don't even need to comment - that little nugget speaks for itself. Carry on, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Narrator: She was not poor.

[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.

I think it's obnoxious for any poster to smugly state that a family could have afforded to send their child to an elite college if only that family had made the same good choices as the poster. However, many posters on here are, in essence, stating that they believe it is unfair that they cannot afford to send their child to these schools. I do consider that to be whining and think it shows a significant lack of awareness of the larger world. Worse are the posters who are upset that a low-income child was able to attend the school in question when their kid could not, and think that the poor family "gamed the system" in order to ensure this outcome. No one who has ever been poor or close to it would envy the lives of families at that income level, and you have to be completely clueless and self-absorbed to make those kinds of claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is people who live under the delusion that they got where they are, attending elite schools, through meritocracy, rather than privilege, getting slapped in the face with reality.

MOST KIDS for the past 50 years who were "worthy" of T20 schools could not go. They didn't even apply.

Posters here clearly did apply and go. They had savvy parents who encouraged them to apply, could afford the tuition, and made it work.

Now they think, hey my kid is "worthy" but something is in my way. It must be (1) new and different (2) unfair.

No, it's how it's always been.

You are resorting to a false equivalency. I can see where your thinking is coming from and it's a corrupted way of thinking. You're not arguing for things to be made more equitable, you're defending the shifting of one perceived privilege to a different perceived privilege. You're effectively justifying today's inequity because things were inequitable in the past. And it's likely because you have a material interest in the current system and resent implications there's something wrong with it. The rich can still easily afford college, the poor get financial aid if they game the system, the middle classes get it harder and harder and people like you only scream and rant "privilege" in their faces while the real privilege, ie the rich, are utterly unaffected.

1) That's not what false equivalency means, I'm explaining history and attitudes.
2) Things are more equitable than ever in the sense that people are asked to pay what they can afford, as determined by a formula, including rich people paying proportionally more, which they should be able to.
3) I personally would be better off with the "old" way since I am full pay.
4) "People like me" are the "real" rich people who are unaffected either way but that doesn't make your belly-aching any more justified. Why should I subsidize someone making over $200k? Let's both pay sticker and subsidize people who can't afford it by making some lifestyle cutbacks.

Yes, it's a false equivalency. You're also defending the system because it's clear you want to justify spending so much money on what is increasingly, as time goes on, a less valuable product, the fancy college degree. Your child would likely be much better off if you simply dumped most of the money into a investment account and told them not to touch it until they were 65, and sent them to the state university instead. You also want to justify effectively being robbed to help a few more poor kids go to fancy colleges.

Some research not long ago, maybe last year as it as shared on here, shows the demographics of the top colleges are increasingly becoming binary, poor on full near full packages and rich on full freight.

I can also look at the rest of your argument. You're demanding to know why you should subsidize someone making over $200k. Ok, let me ask you, why is it $200k? Why shouldn't it stop at $100k? It's an arbitrary figure to use and because it's arbitrary it's trapped a lot of people in that bracket (say the $150-$300k) who are the ones who struggle to afford the private colleges, either not getting enough aid or no aid at all. That's a major chunk of the upper middle classes who used to dominate these private colleges.

Then, of course, as someone pointed out earlier, the calculators used for financial aid don't take into account long term income trends. You may have just been making $200k for a few years and don't have anywhere near the money to pay full tuition as most people can't pay $80k out of a $200k income once taxes are paid and day to day living need to be covered.

And since you demanded people should pay what they can afford, here's the other newsflash for you: even the full freight kids are, according to all the top colleges, subsidizes and don't pay the true "accurate" cost of educating the kids as the endowment covers the rest. So sneering at people for not paying what "they can afford" while you're being subsidized by the generous alumni donations of people who attended when the colleges were much cheaper is the epitome of hypocrisy.