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

[Anonymous]

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.

Now who is being judgmental? The fatal flaw in your argument: many of us don't educate our kids seeking a fiscal ROI calculation.

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.

Well thanks for showing that research, and linking to it. Plenty of others linked to the opposite!

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.

It's not my decision what they charge. It's my opinion that what they charge is their decision and as far as I can tell it is very, very fair.

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.

As shown above, income is only part of the calculation. At Yale it's 20% up to $200K. Assets are the big one, but the situation you describe the family would not have large assets so should not be a problem.

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.

I don't think you know what "hypocrisy" means. Alumni and other donors often give for specific purposes, and guess what happens if they don't like what the school is doing? They stop giving. The colleges are doing things for the benefit of the institution they serve.

[Anonymous]

When will people stop saying things like “how am I supposed to be able to afford $70,000 a year on a salary of $xxx after paying even modest living expenses”??!! Did you really get to this point thinking you didn’t have to save ANYTHING in advance??!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When will people stop saying things like “how am I supposed to be able to afford $70,000 a year on a salary of $xxx after paying even modest living expenses”??!! Did you really get to this point thinking you didn’t have to save ANYTHING in advance??!!

When will people finally understand many people didn't make a salary of $xxxx for many years? Some of the assumptions on here are sheer arrogance and breathtakingly ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will people stop saying things like “how am I supposed to be able to afford $70,000 a year on a salary of $xxx after paying even modest living expenses”??!! Did you really get to this point thinking you didn’t have to save ANYTHING in advance??!!

When will people finally understand many people didn't make a salary of $xxxx for many years? Some of the assumptions on here are sheer arrogance and breathtakingly ignorant.

Income is only part of elite college financial aid calculations, and as noted many times (but not responded to) at Yale it is only 20% at $200K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can tell you think you're very bright. Probably a lawyer.

Anyway, I agree that I still underpay. But maybe we will get there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP: So now the elite college degree is of diminishing value? People who can afford it should just go to state universities?

But I thought that the whole issue was that it is crushingly unfair that those unfortunate souls who only make $200,000/year and have only $400,000 saved for college for 2 kids (to reference a PP) didn't receive aid to attend an elite university?

So which is it? It's so important that we need to provide aid so that everyone who wants to attend can go (without taking out any loans, of course), or it's of diminished, and diminishing, value?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will people stop saying things like “how am I supposed to be able to afford $70,000 a year on a salary of $xxx after paying even modest living expenses”??!! Did you really get to this point thinking you didn’t have to save ANYTHING in advance??!!

When will people finally understand many people didn't make a salary of $xxxx for many years? Some of the assumptions on here are sheer arrogance and breathtakingly ignorant.

Here’s a novel idea. What if every time you got a raise or bonus, you put that extra money into a 529 plan, instead of increasing your living expenses to match the new salary? What is breathtakingly ignorant is a claim that when you were “only” making $150k, or $170, or $190, you assumed that someone else would be giving you enough money to pay for college, and/or that you couldn’t possibly save a few dollars at those salary levels and still put food on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will people stop saying things like “how am I supposed to be able to afford $70,000 a year on a salary of $xxx after paying even modest living expenses”??!! Did you really get to this point thinking you didn’t have to save ANYTHING in advance??!!

When will people finally understand many people didn't make a salary of $xxxx for many years? Some of the assumptions on here are sheer arrogance and breathtakingly ignorant.

Here’s a novel idea. What if every time you got a raise or bonus, you put that extra money into a 529 plan, instead of increasing your living expenses to match the new salary? What is breathtakingly ignorant is a claim that when you were “only” making $150k, or $170, or $190, you assumed that someone else would be giving you enough money to pay for college, and/or that you couldn’t possibly save a few dollars at those salary levels and still put food on the table.

Here's a novel idea. Maybe there's a large grad school debt to pay off? Maybe there were years of unemployment during the last recession? Maybe there's needing to buy a house in a decent school district? Maybe there's health problems and special needs siblings. Maybe there's not hitting six figures until your kids were 12 and not being able to save that much until after that because before you wete aggressively paying down your own grad school loans and paying daycare. Maybe there's parents with limited future work life and need to protect their retirements. Or maybe, just maybe, there's the common "saving money every year and being responsible but still can't keep up with the massive increases in college tuition." Or maybe it's a combination of all the above.

The issue on this thread is not people with 200k HHI whining about not getting full scholarships but that the differential between what they are able to pay without going into debt or putting their kid into debt or risking their retirement and the financial aid the school may or may not offer.

I can tell you're probably a kid, or someone lucky enough to walk into six figures at your first job and don't realize how the trajectory is very different for many people. The entitlement in your post is disturbing in its arrogance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will people stop saying things like “how am I supposed to be able to afford $70,000 a year on a salary of $xxx after paying even modest living expenses”??!! Did you really get to this point thinking you didn’t have to save ANYTHING in advance??!!

When will people finally understand many people didn't make a salary of $xxxx for many years? Some of the assumptions on here are sheer arrogance and breathtakingly ignorant.

Here’s a novel idea. What if every time you got a raise or bonus, you put that extra money into a 529 plan, instead of increasing your living expenses to match the new salary? What is breathtakingly ignorant is a claim that when you were “only” making $150k, or $170, or $190, you assumed that someone else would be giving you enough money to pay for college, and/or that you couldn’t possibly save a few dollars at those salary levels and still put food on the table.

Here's a novel idea. Maybe there's a large grad school debt to pay off? Maybe there were years of unemployment during the last recession? Maybe there's needing to buy a house in a decent school district? Maybe there's health problems and special needs siblings. Maybe there's not hitting six figures until your kids were 12 and not being able to save that much until after that because before you wete aggressively paying down your own grad school loans and paying daycare. Maybe there's parents with limited future work life and need to protect their retirements. Or maybe, just maybe, there's the common "saving money every year and being responsible but still can't keep up with the massive increases in college tuition." Or maybe it's a combination of all the above.

The issue on this thread is not people with 200k HHI whining about not getting full scholarships but that the differential between what they are able to pay without going into debt or putting their kid into debt or risking their retirement and the financial aid the school may or may not offer.

I can tell you're probably a kid, or someone lucky enough to walk into six figures at your first job and don't realize how the trajectory is very different for many people. The entitlement in your post is disturbing in its arrogance.

The only entitlement here is people making $150K a year bemoaning that they can’t afford an elite private university. Doesn’t matter why. Get over yourselves.

[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.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

[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.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

NP. The problem is you are equating going to Ivy to eating a meal in a fancy restaurant and going to a non-Ivy school to eating in a less fancy restaurant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

NP. The problem is you are equating going to Ivy to eating a meal in a fancy restaurant and going to a non-Ivy school to eating in a less fancy restaurant.

Seems an apt comparison to me. Cheap meal or expensive meal, you get fed; Ivy or state directional, you get a B.A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

NP. The problem is you are equating going to Ivy to eating a meal in a fancy restaurant and going to a non-Ivy school to eating in a less fancy restaurant.

Seems an apt comparison to me. Cheap meal or expensive meal, you get fed; Ivy or state directional, you get a B.A.

Sure. You can feed yourself by eating only fast-food restaurant fare or only tacos and burritos. But experts will say you may become a candidate for obesity, diabetes, and heart problems. You want to have a better chance at a healthy future, you eat balanced and quality food. You want to have a better chance at a rewarding career leading to a financially comfortable life, you go to a school that offers varied and challenging opportunities at learning and where your fellow students are well prepared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

NP. The problem is you are equating going to Ivy to eating a meal in a fancy restaurant and going to a non-Ivy school to eating in a less fancy restaurant.

Seems an apt comparison to me. Cheap meal or expensive meal, you get fed; Ivy or state directional, you get a B.A.

Sure. You can feed yourself by eating only fast-food restaurant fare or only tacos and burritos. But experts will say you may become a candidate for obesity, diabetes, and heart problems. You want to have a better chance at a healthy future, you eat balanced and quality food. You want to have a better chance at a rewarding career leading to a financially comfortable life, you go to a school that offers varied and challenging opportunities at learning and where your fellow students are well prepared.

The idea that state schools are the equivalent of fast food is insulting and uneducated.

There may well be benefits to many kids form gong to a private school. There are many very good, great and even elite public colleges.

The difference is in the size of classes, access to professors, factors around the edges of a solid education. DH went to an elite university, I went to an excellent state university (UC system). I went to an elite state law school (UC system) and DH went to a very good private law school. We are comparably employed and successful (senior feds). All were very strong educations. Our parents, who were of similar UMC means, paid for our undergrad educations and we each paid for our grad educations.

We are not "rich" but we do well and we will be able to pay for whatever college our kids want to attend as we are planning for it (teen and tween).

The point of this thread is the change in what it takes ot pay for an elite private education and how that impacts the SES make up of elite universities. A strong student, one that could be accepted into an elite college on merit alone, is going to have the options of a strong state university or a good private that they will get merit aid to attend. No one (or very few) get merit aid to the elite universities. All strong students should have the ability to get through undergrad at a moderate cost, just not an elite institution. The question is should society worry about the drop in donut hole kids going to elite universities?

We are a donut hole family (I have run the NPC and we get zero) and we are lucky that we have had strong earnings for a whlle so we are able to save. We also waited to have kids so will be among the older parents at college graduation. From our perspective, if our kids get into an elite university that is the best fit for them, we wil pay for them to attend. We will not pay just for a name or a ranking and the value will be taken into consideration. We are in DC so are in state nowhere but will get (hopefully) the TAG program money to reduce the cost of a state university if that is where our kids end up attending.

I consider us lucky to be in the position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then don't go to an ivy. There are plenty of other more affordable schools for you. I would like to go to a fancy restaurant, but I can't afford or am unwilling to pay, then I go to a less fancy one. I still have a nice meal and I am happy. So what's the problem?

NP. The problem is you are equating going to Ivy to eating a meal in a fancy restaurant and going to a non-Ivy school to eating in a less fancy restaurant.

Seems an apt comparison to me. Cheap meal or expensive meal, you get fed; Ivy or state directional, you get a B.A.

Sure. You can feed yourself by eating only fast-food restaurant fare or only tacos and burritos. But experts will say you may become a candidate for obesity, diabetes, and heart problems. You want to have a better chance at a healthy future, you eat balanced and quality food. You want to have a better chance at a rewarding career leading to a financially comfortable life, you go to a school that offers varied and challenging opportunities at learning and where your fellow students are well prepared.

NP-- who says you can't get that at a public school? I attended UC Berkeley-- are you seriously going to say that Berkeley doesn't provide a "varied and challenging opportunity at learning" and that Berkeley students aren't well prepared? I'm sure the same can be said at many public schools-- especially at flagship state schools.