Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite is true,

according to the new research by Stanford economist Raj Chetty and co-authors.They show that 14.5% of students in America’s elite universities (eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke) are from families in the top 1% of income distribution, compared with only 3.8% from the bottom quintile. That’s a dramatic overrepresentation of the richest Americans.

But think about it. We are talking about a 320k education. Why would the very poor and the very rich be equally represented? Also there are many moor poor people than very rich people so while very rich people are of course over represented they seem to be very much outnumbered by lower income people on campus.

What are you talking about? Op is only referring to "top" colleges. These places are need blind and have endowments in the billions. Affluent students are way overrepresented. Spend a week at a top college and see how many poor kids you can find. Good luck.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

not the lowest of incomes, or even low income. household incomes up to the 75th, 80th, 85th percentile in the us will receive "massive" aid from the top colleges. Over half of households in the us would qualify for free room, board, and tuition at stanford, for example. 80% of households ($150k) would receive free tuition at stanford. now, of course there is the argument that lower/lower middle/midle class kids are less likely to get into stanford et al. than their higher income peers. fair. still, not remotely accurate to say you need to be low, and certainly not lowEST income for "massive aid."

Yes, all of this is right. Which is why, for the tippy top schools, "donut hole" is a complete myth. In reality, schools accurately determine who can afford the schools and who is wealthy enough to pay up, even if those people are themselves in denial.

Yes because the schools are the all knowing arbiters of what is a reasonable expectation for a middle class family to pay for their product

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assume two kids who also need daycare for 5-6 years and then both after care and summer camp for child care. Then add in mom and dad’s own student loan payments.

Or you move to LCOL (perhaps one of your hometowns), have one parent SAH and/or have grandparents provide childcare. No camps; kids stay home alone starting at 9. That was an option.

And btw, what about retirement savings for the parents? Especially that SAH one? This is absurd.

Millions of people do it. And then they get aid. It’s not “absurd” at all; it’s your burn rate that’s “absurd.”

So I should quit my job and move to the Midwest to qualify for financial aid? If that’s the plan, why bother saving in a 529 at all? I’m shielding it all in retirement accounts.

Because you’re a snob. You couldn’t stand to live in flyover country, eating Applebee’s and driving 2 hours to the “big city” to shop at big box stores once a month. You’ve chosen to spend your money on a luxury zip code.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite is true,

according to the new research by Stanford economist Raj Chetty and co-authors.They show that 14.5% of students in America’s elite universities (eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke) are from families in the top 1% of income distribution, compared with only 3.8% from the bottom quintile. That’s a dramatic overrepresentation of the richest Americans.

But think about it. We are talking about a 320k education. Why would the very poor and the very rich be equally represented? Also there are many moor poor people than very rich people so while very rich people are of course over represented they seem to be very much outnumbered by lower income people on campus.

What are you talking about? Op is only referring to "top" colleges. These places are need blind and have endowments in the billions. Affluent students are way overrepresented. Spend a week at a top college and see how many poor kids you can find. Good luck.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

not the lowest of incomes, or even low income. household incomes up to the 75th, 80th, 85th percentile in the us will receive "massive" aid from the top colleges. Over half of households in the us would qualify for free room, board, and tuition at stanford, for example. 80% of households ($150k) would receive free tuition at stanford. now, of course there is the argument that lower/lower middle/midle class kids are less likely to get into stanford et al. than their higher income peers. fair. still, not remotely accurate to say you need to be low, and certainly not lowEST income for "massive aid."

Yes, all of this is right. Which is why, for the tippy top schools, "donut hole" is a complete myth. In reality, schools accurately determine who can afford the schools and who is wealthy enough to pay up, even if those people are themselves in denial.

Yes because the schools are the all knowing arbiters of what is a reasonable expectation for a middle class family to pay for their product

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assume two kids who also need daycare for 5-6 years and then both after care and summer camp for child care. Then add in mom and dad’s own student loan payments.

Or you move to LCOL (perhaps one of your hometowns), have one parent SAH and/or have grandparents provide childcare. No camps; kids stay home alone starting at 9. That was an option.

And btw, what about retirement savings for the parents? Especially that SAH one? This is absurd.

Millions of people do it. And then they get aid. It’s not “absurd” at all; it’s your burn rate that’s “absurd.”

So I should quit my job and move to the Midwest to qualify for financial aid? If that’s the plan, why bother saving in a 529 at all? I’m shielding it all in retirement accounts.

Because you’re a snob. You couldn’t stand to live in flyover country, eating Applebee’s and driving 2 hours to the “big city” to shop at big box stores once a month. You’ve chosen to spend your money on a luxury zip code.

You’re really off your rocker. Most of came here to do meaningful work. If I wanted a luxury zip code and a good quality of life, I’d be living out west. Instead, we’re here doing scientific research or combating threats to our country or trying to make better public policy.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite is true,

according to the new research by Stanford economist Raj Chetty and co-authors.They show that 14.5% of students in America’s elite universities (eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke) are from families in the top 1% of income distribution, compared with only 3.8% from the bottom quintile. That’s a dramatic overrepresentation of the richest Americans.

But think about it. We are talking about a 320k education. Why would the very poor and the very rich be equally represented? Also there are many moor poor people than very rich people so while very rich people are of course over represented they seem to be very much outnumbered by lower income people on campus.

What are you talking about? Op is only referring to "top" colleges. These places are need blind and have endowments in the billions. Affluent students are way overrepresented. Spend a week at a top college and see how many poor kids you can find. Good luck.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

not the lowest of incomes, or even low income. household incomes up to the 75th, 80th, 85th percentile in the us will receive "massive" aid from the top colleges. Over half of households in the us would qualify for free room, board, and tuition at stanford, for example. 80% of households ($150k) would receive free tuition at stanford. now, of course there is the argument that lower/lower middle/midle class kids are less likely to get into stanford et al. than their higher income peers. fair. still, not remotely accurate to say you need to be low, and certainly not lowEST income for "massive aid."

Yes, all of this is right. Which is why, for the tippy top schools, "donut hole" is a complete myth. In reality, schools accurately determine who can afford the schools and who is wealthy enough to pay up, even if those people are themselves in denial.

Yes because the schools are the all knowing arbiters of what is a reasonable expectation for a middle class family to pay for their product

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assume two kids who also need daycare for 5-6 years and then both after care and summer camp for child care. Then add in mom and dad’s own student loan payments.

Or you move to LCOL (perhaps one of your hometowns), have one parent SAH and/or have grandparents provide childcare. No camps; kids stay home alone starting at 9. That was an option.

And btw, what about retirement savings for the parents? Especially that SAH one? This is absurd.

Millions of people do it. And then they get aid. It’s not “absurd” at all; it’s your burn rate that’s “absurd.”

So I should quit my job and move to the Midwest to qualify for financial aid? If that’s the plan, why bother saving in a 529 at all? I’m shielding it all in retirement accounts.

Because you’re a snob. You couldn’t stand to live in flyover country, eating Applebee’s and driving 2 hours to the “big city” to shop at big box stores once a month. You’ve chosen to spend your money on a luxury zip code.

You’re really off your rocker. Most of came here to do meaningful work. If I wanted a luxury zip code and a good quality of life, I’d be living out west. Instead, we’re here doing scientific research or combating threats to our country or trying to make better public policy.

Fine. You’re getting paid partially in self-importance. But if it’s not leading you you providing the outcomes you want for your kids, leave. Or quit your feel-good job and enter the private sector. Or, if you don’t like those options, send your kids to state school.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite is true,

according to the new research by Stanford economist Raj Chetty and co-authors.They show that 14.5% of students in America’s elite universities (eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke) are from families in the top 1% of income distribution, compared with only 3.8% from the bottom quintile. That’s a dramatic overrepresentation of the richest Americans.

But think about it. We are talking about a 320k education. Why would the very poor and the very rich be equally represented? Also there are many moor poor people than very rich people so while very rich people are of course over represented they seem to be very much outnumbered by lower income people on campus.

What are you talking about? Op is only referring to "top" colleges. These places are need blind and have endowments in the billions. Affluent students are way overrepresented. Spend a week at a top college and see how many poor kids you can find. Good luck.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

not the lowest of incomes, or even low income. household incomes up to the 75th, 80th, 85th percentile in the us will receive "massive" aid from the top colleges. Over half of households in the us would qualify for free room, board, and tuition at stanford, for example. 80% of households ($150k) would receive free tuition at stanford. now, of course there is the argument that lower/lower middle/midle class kids are less likely to get into stanford et al. than their higher income peers. fair. still, not remotely accurate to say you need to be low, and certainly not lowEST income for "massive aid."

Yes, all of this is right. Which is why, for the tippy top schools, "donut hole" is a complete myth. In reality, schools accurately determine who can afford the schools and who is wealthy enough to pay up, even if those people are themselves in denial.

Yes because the schools are the all knowing arbiters of what is a reasonable expectation for a middle class family to pay for their product

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assume two kids who also need daycare for 5-6 years and then both after care and summer camp for child care. Then add in mom and dad’s own student loan payments.

Or you move to LCOL (perhaps one of your hometowns), have one parent SAH and/or have grandparents provide childcare. No camps; kids stay home alone starting at 9. That was an option.

And btw, what about retirement savings for the parents? Especially that SAH one? This is absurd.

Millions of people do it. And then they get aid. It’s not “absurd” at all; it’s your burn rate that’s “absurd.”

So I should quit my job and move to the Midwest to qualify for financial aid? If that’s the plan, why bother saving in a 529 at all? I’m shielding it all in retirement accounts.

Because you’re a snob. You couldn’t stand to live in flyover country, eating Applebee’s and driving 2 hours to the “big city” to shop at big box stores once a month. You’ve chosen to spend your money on a luxury zip code.

You’re really off your rocker. Most of came here to do meaningful work. If I wanted a luxury zip code and a good quality of life, I’d be living out west. Instead, we’re here doing scientific research or combating threats to our country or trying to make better public policy.

Fine. You’re getting paid partially in self-importance. But if it’s not leading you you providing the outcomes you want for your kids, leave. Or quit your feel-good job and enter the private sector. Or, if you don’t like those options, send your kids to state school.

Apparently you just come here to argue. I don’t even know what your point is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to confirm--OP and a few others on this thread are arguing that low-middle or middle-class families (approx. $65-150K) are poor and therefore, 2/3 of elite schools are full of poor (lower class) kids??

OP, do you consider everyone under $200K poor? So there are only the lower class, UMC, and the UC/wealthy?

I would consider someone poor who qualifies for financial aid that is basically or equal to a full ride. Perhaps poor is too harsh. I don’t mean it in the sense of indigent. I mean it in the sense of someone who has minimal ability to accumulate savings, is basically just surviving, and has insubstantial assets.

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

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

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

Do you have data to back this up? Because I believe you are wrong.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The opposite is true,

according to the new research by Stanford economist Raj Chetty and co-authors.They show that 14.5% of students in America’s elite universities (eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke) are from families in the top 1% of income distribution, compared with only 3.8% from the bottom quintile. That’s a dramatic overrepresentation of the richest Americans.

But think about it. We are talking about a 320k education. Why would the very poor and the very rich be equally represented? Also there are many moor poor people than very rich people so while very rich people are of course over represented they seem to be very much outnumbered by lower income people on campus.

What are you talking about? Op is only referring to "top" colleges. These places are need blind and have endowments in the billions. Affluent students are way overrepresented. Spend a week at a top college and see how many poor kids you can find. Good luck.

Yet the majority are receiving massive need based aid.

Massive for the lowest income ...possibly full ride and then down from there depending on the calculator. They do not this policy in any way. Plenty of families want to attend even if they are full pay or only getting awards of 10, 20, 30, 40 percent. But not all think it is worth it and they go to cheaper schools

not the lowest of incomes, or even low income. household incomes up to the 75th, 80th, 85th percentile in the us will receive "massive" aid from the top colleges. Over half of households in the us would qualify for free room, board, and tuition at stanford, for example. 80% of households ($150k) would receive free tuition at stanford. now, of course there is the argument that lower/lower middle/midle class kids are less likely to get into stanford et al. than their higher income peers. fair. still, not remotely accurate to say you need to be low, and certainly not lowEST income for "massive aid."

Yes, all of this is right. Which is why, for the tippy top schools, "donut hole" is a complete myth. In reality, schools accurately determine who can afford the schools and who is wealthy enough to pay up, even if those people are themselves in denial.

Yes because the schools are the all knowing arbiters of what is a reasonable expectation for a middle class family to pay for their product

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assume two kids who also need daycare for 5-6 years and then both after care and summer camp for child care. Then add in mom and dad’s own student loan payments.

Or you move to LCOL (perhaps one of your hometowns), have one parent SAH and/or have grandparents provide childcare. No camps; kids stay home alone starting at 9. That was an option.

And btw, what about retirement savings for the parents? Especially that SAH one? This is absurd.

Millions of people do it. And then they get aid. It’s not “absurd” at all; it’s your burn rate that’s “absurd.”

So I should quit my job and move to the Midwest to qualify for financial aid? If that’s the plan, why bother saving in a 529 at all? I’m shielding it all in retirement accounts.

Because you’re a snob. You couldn’t stand to live in flyover country, eating Applebee’s and driving 2 hours to the “big city” to shop at big box stores once a month. You’ve chosen to spend your money on a luxury zip code.

You’re really off your rocker. Most of came here to do meaningful work. If I wanted a luxury zip code and a good quality of life, I’d be living out west. Instead, we’re here doing scientific research or combating threats to our country or trying to make better public policy.

Fine. You’re getting paid partially in self-importance. But if it’s not leading you you providing the outcomes you want for your kids, leave. Or quit your feel-good job and enter the private sector. Or, if you don’t like those options, send your kids to state school.

Apparently you just come here to argue. I don’t even know what your point is.

Well that much is clear. Although I suspect it’s that you don’t want to understand my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to confirm--OP and a few others on this thread are arguing that low-middle or middle-class families (approx. $65-150K) are poor and therefore, 2/3 of elite schools are full of poor (lower class) kids??

OP, do you consider everyone under $200K poor? So there are only the lower class, UMC, and the UC/wealthy?

I would consider someone poor who qualifies for financial aid that is basically or equal to a full ride. Perhaps poor is too harsh. I don’t mean it in the sense of indigent. I mean it in the sense of someone who has minimal ability to accumulate savings, is basically just surviving, and has insubstantial assets.

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

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

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

Do you have data to back this up? Because I believe you are wrong.

Stop baiting people. Go read a book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Often 2/3 of students at top ranked schools are getting need based aid that covers the vast majority of costs, on average.

200k is the typical cut off for need based aid (about the income level of a couple of school teachers at the peak of their careers aka “the wealthy”)

It just seems these schools must be populated primarily with lower income kids and then 1/3 rich kids.

I guess middle class kids end up at state school.

Look, I made about 45k last year and my spouse right at 55k. Our son was lucky enough to get into a dual degree program at our local commuter college which facilitates transfer to a state flagship for the field of study that he has wanted literally since he was four years old.. He will not get a penny of aid beyond $5500 unsubsidized loan. He will live at home to save money and waive insurance, but I'm still not sure we can pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often 2/3 of students at top ranked schools are getting need based aid that covers the vast majority of costs, on average.

200k is the typical cut off for need based aid (about the income level of a couple of school teachers at the peak of their careers aka “the wealthy”)

It just seems these schools must be populated primarily with lower income kids and then 1/3 rich kids.

I guess middle class kids end up at state school.

No, the middle class of the country goes from 65-160k. So most of the kids are middle class or lower class. That reflects the population as a whole, although in fact upper income kids should be less (20% vs 33%). It’s amazing how many people here actually secretly want a Russian style plutocracy. No wonder trump won.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

You are missing the point, I think. The approach to pricing that we have now (kids under 150k get a full ride, otherwise you pay full price, more or less) reinforces plutocracy, as only the very affluent can really afford full price.

You are not middle class!! It’s very offensive to claim a lower SES! You are upper class and your peer group is OVER represented at these elite schools. Also, families with income under 150 do not get a ‘full ride.’ They get sliding scale aid, and believe me it is not enough that’s why they max out on student loans. Pell grants only go to very poor families. If you make 200k you are in the top 20% of earners in the country and, good news, your kid is more likely to get into a top college than Susie from Scranton (pretty unfair actually). And your kid will need less loans than Susie from Scranton because you can afford to help them! You are incredibly blind to your privilege.

'
This. At 150k, we "poors" get a portion, not full ride. If we made 250k/yr, we could totally afford 80k/yr for college. What y'all spending your money on?

An extra 100k income doesn't translate into 100k disposable income. In theory you could scrimp and save but every spare penny would go to 80k a year in tuition. The opportunity cost is too high as there's plenty of competition for your dollars. Mortgage, other children, retirement. See the UVA thread. It's rarely worth it for a VA family with 250k income to spend 80k year tuition for out of state private over instate UVA.

Duh. Of course I know that. That's a given. I'm frugal and am saving 40k/yr on our under 150K income. But even with a partial bump, we'd be able to afford 80K. It wouldn't take scrimping and saving every penny because I already do that! I also already pay mortgage, other children and retirement. The assumptions about us "poors" is really something. Guess what, 250k+ crows? You're not "middle class." You have money. Save it if you want to go to these colleges. But, I do agree that cost has grown exponentially, and it is more of a burden for everyone. Just stop dismissing those of us who are actually middle class as poor people who dominate the landscape. We save and pay. We don't get the fancy hotels or the name brand mattress toppers. And, the actual poor people have real struggles beyond scrimping and saving. No one is as well off as the 250k+ set.

[Anonymous]

Crowd, not crows!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to confirm--OP and a few others on this thread are arguing that low-middle or middle-class families (approx. $65-150K) are poor and therefore, 2/3 of elite schools are full of poor (lower class) kids??

OP, do you consider everyone under $200K poor? So there are only the lower class, UMC, and the UC/wealthy?

I would consider someone poor who qualifies for financial aid that is basically or equal to a full ride. Perhaps poor is too harsh. I don’t mean it in the sense of indigent. I mean it in the sense of someone who has minimal ability to accumulate savings, is basically just surviving, and has insubstantial assets.

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

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

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

Do you have data to back this up? Because I believe you are wrong.

Look at median HHI in 1993 relative to Ivy League tuition in 1993. Tuition is far higher now, while financial aid (for those who qualify) is much better.

[Anonymous]

OP, this thread's subject is embarrassing. "Poor people?" Who says that? People of means on anonymous discussion boards!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to confirm--OP and a few others on this thread are arguing that low-middle or middle-class families (approx. $65-150K) are poor and therefore, 2/3 of elite schools are full of poor (lower class) kids??

OP, do you consider everyone under $200K poor? So there are only the lower class, UMC, and the UC/wealthy?

I would consider someone poor who qualifies for financial aid that is basically or equal to a full ride. Perhaps poor is too harsh. I don’t mean it in the sense of indigent. I mean it in the sense of someone who has minimal ability to accumulate savings, is basically just surviving, and has insubstantial assets.

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

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

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

Do you have data to back this up? Because I believe you are wrong.

Stop baiting people. Go read a book.

We make $300k, have two kids and plan to send them to private college if they get into a top tier school. One already has. The other is several years away from applying. We have been planning their whole lives for this. Friends whose salaries are likely similar are doing the same thing. I do believe there are families with similar salaries who look at the cost and say no way (which is a smart and reasonable position). But I don’t believe Harvard has kids whose families make less than $200k or more than $600k with no one in between. I actually expect those kids are over represented in their numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often 2/3 of students at top ranked schools are getting need based aid that covers the vast majority of costs, on average.

200k is the typical cut off for need based aid (about the income level of a couple of school teachers at the peak of their careers aka “the wealthy”)

It just seems these schools must be populated primarily with lower income kids and then 1/3 rich kids.

I guess middle class kids end up at state school.

No, the middle class of the country goes from 65-160k. So most of the kids are middle class or lower class. That reflects the population as a whole, although in fact upper income kids should be less (20% vs 33%). It’s amazing how many people here actually secretly want a Russian style plutocracy. No wonder trump won.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

You are missing the point, I think. The approach to pricing that we have now (kids under 150k get a full ride, otherwise you pay full price, more or less) reinforces plutocracy, as only the very affluent can really afford full price.

You are not middle class!! It’s very offensive to claim a lower SES! You are upper class and your peer group is OVER represented at these elite schools. Also, families with income under 150 do not get a ‘full ride.’ They get sliding scale aid, and believe me it is not enough that’s why they max out on student loans. Pell grants only go to very poor families. If you make 200k you are in the top 20% of earners in the country and, good news, your kid is more likely to get into a top college than Susie from Scranton (pretty unfair actually). And your kid will need less loans than Susie from Scranton because you can afford to help them! You are incredibly blind to your privilege.

'
This. At 150k, we "poors" get a portion, not full ride. If we made 250k/yr, we could totally afford 80k/yr for college. What y'all spending your money on?

An extra 100k income doesn't translate into 100k disposable income. In theory you could scrimp and save but every spare penny would go to 80k a year in tuition. The opportunity cost is too high as there's plenty of competition for your dollars. Mortgage, other children, retirement. See the UVA thread. It's rarely worth it for a VA family with 250k income to spend 80k year tuition for out of state private over instate UVA.

Duh. Of course I know that. That's a given. I'm frugal and am saving 40k/yr on our under 150K income. But even with a partial bump, we'd be able to afford 80K. It wouldn't take scrimping and saving every penny because I already do that! I also already pay mortgage, other children and retirement. The assumptions about us "poors" is really something. Guess what, 250k+ crows? You're not "middle class." You have money. Save it if you want to go to these colleges. But, I do agree that cost has grown exponentially, and it is more of a burden for everyone. Just stop dismissing those of us who are actually middle class as poor people who dominate the landscape. We save and pay. We don't get the fancy hotels or the name brand mattress toppers. And, the actual poor people have real struggles beyond scrimping and saving. No one is as well off as the 250k+ set.

Does the MyPillow mattress topper count as brand name?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often 2/3 of students at top ranked schools are getting need based aid that covers the vast majority of costs, on average.

200k is the typical cut off for need based aid (about the income level of a couple of school teachers at the peak of their careers aka “the wealthy”)

It just seems these schools must be populated primarily with lower income kids and then 1/3 rich kids.

I guess middle class kids end up at state school.

No, the middle class of the country goes from 65-160k. So most of the kids are middle class or lower class. That reflects the population as a whole, although in fact upper income kids should be less (20% vs 33%). It’s amazing how many people here actually secretly want a Russian style plutocracy. No wonder trump won.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/23/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

You are missing the point, I think. The approach to pricing that we have now (kids under 150k get a full ride, otherwise you pay full price, more or less) reinforces plutocracy, as only the very affluent can really afford full price.

You are not middle class!! It’s very offensive to claim a lower SES! You are upper class and your peer group is OVER represented at these elite schools. Also, families with income under 150 do not get a ‘full ride.’ They get sliding scale aid, and believe me it is not enough that’s why they max out on student loans. Pell grants only go to very poor families. If you make 200k you are in the top 20% of earners in the country and, good news, your kid is more likely to get into a top college than Susie from Scranton (pretty unfair actually). And your kid will need less loans than Susie from Scranton because you can afford to help them! You are incredibly blind to your privilege.

'
This. At 150k, we "poors" get a portion, not full ride. If we made 250k/yr, we could totally afford 80k/yr for college. What y'all spending your money on?

An extra 100k income doesn't translate into 100k disposable income. In theory you could scrimp and save but every spare penny would go to 80k a year in tuition. The opportunity cost is too high as there's plenty of competition for your dollars. Mortgage, other children, retirement. See the UVA thread. It's rarely worth it for a VA family with 250k income to spend 80k year tuition for out of state private over instate UVA.

Duh. Of course I know that. That's a given. I'm frugal and am saving 40k/yr on our under 150K income. But even with a partial bump, we'd be able to afford 80K. It wouldn't take scrimping and saving every penny because I already do that! I also already pay mortgage, other children and retirement. The assumptions about us "poors" is really something. Guess what, 250k+ crows? You're not "middle class." You have money. Save it if you want to go to these colleges. But, I do agree that cost has grown exponentially, and it is more of a burden for everyone. Just stop dismissing those of us who are actually middle class as poor people who dominate the landscape. We save and pay. We don't get the fancy hotels or the name brand mattress toppers. And, the actual poor people have real struggles beyond scrimping and saving. No one is as well off as the 250k+ set.

Does the MyPillow mattress topper count as brand name?

PP here. Now, that would be a waste of money!