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: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.

Those degrees weren’t worth it, then.

In my career experience, young working class mothers tend to live in the area they grew up in. They never went to college and got a full time job close to home after graduating high school. They tend to have a huge social infrastructure available for childcare, the kids grandparents and aunts/uncles ect. Many of my current colleagues from lower socioeconomic background literally never have childcare issues, there always seems to be someone available if they need extra shifts. It’s the middle class college grads who uprooted from their home town who struggles with childcare. Also, ironically, immigrants seem to develop that same network quickly. Colleagues from the Philippines all seen to belong to the same church and are always baby sitting for each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse and I combined make just over $400k and live in Chevy Chase. My kid got into ND for class of 2027. But we are seriously thinking about sending her to UMD or Clemson, where she has money at both. We haven’t always made $400k, we have three kids and $330k is a lot for undergrad. Point is that you need to make a lot of money to not have to think twice about pricey privates.

You are the exact point of this thread. Even up to 400k of income, well beyond the threshold of financial aid, full pay at a private college is an iffy proposition. The upper middle class is being hollowed out at these schools, where the pricing architecture favors middle to low income and the very affluent.

But it’s always been an iffy proposition. Families have always decided (correctly) that a state school education was great. My own parents in the 90’s decided that they didn’t want to pay for an Ivy education since there were three of us and sent me to the state flagship honors program for basically free. Great decision. We will make a different decision for their grandchildren even though the relative cost is higher for us than it was for them. Making choices about whether to splurge on something that is not necessary will always be a personal choice.

But the point is, the math has changed over the decades. The cost of attendance has risen faster than inflation. Meanwhile, financial aid for low income students has become more generous thanks to swollen endowments. The top schools are increasingly becoming filled with kids who qualify for substantial aid (in fact a majority of students) and kids who qualify for no aid and their parents still send them there because they are very wealthy and money is not an object. This trend is only continuing. Perhaps soon all the top schools will look like Trinity College. A bunch of kids on financial aid and then like half the class filled with rich white prep school kids who like to party and don't really have much interest in books. This is where we are headed because pretty soon it will be 100k/yr and the number of families prepared to pay that kind of money will become lower and lower.

[Anonymous]

The winners here will be schools that can offer merit aid. They will attract the upper middle class families who don't qualify for need based aid but are still price sensitive. So all the good students from this cohort will (continue to) flock to the merit aid schools. The average test scores and selectivity of these schools will improve, making them more appealing to all cohorts. Need only schools will go the way of Trinity--lots of kids on aid and lots of academically challenged holistically approved "test optional" rich kids who couldn't get in anywhere else (but investment banker daddy has $400k to burn)... The pricing architecture is broken. Merit aid is the solution. You make college affordable to the upper middle class and you reward the strongest students in that cohort.

[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: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.

Those degrees weren’t worth it, then.

In my career experience, young working class mothers tend to live in the area they grew up in. They never went to college and got a full time job close to home after graduating high school. They tend to have a huge social infrastructure available for childcare, the kids grandparents and aunts/uncles ect. Many of my current colleagues from lower socioeconomic background literally never have childcare issues, there always seems to be someone available if they need extra shifts. It’s the middle class college grads who uprooted from their home town who struggles with childcare. Also, ironically, immigrants seem to develop that same network quickly. Colleagues from the Philippines all seen to belong to the same church and are always baby sitting for each other.

+1 I’ve observed the same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse and I combined make just over $400k and live in Chevy Chase. My kid got into ND for class of 2027. But we are seriously thinking about sending her to UMD or Clemson, where she has money at both. We haven’t always made $400k, we have three kids and $330k is a lot for undergrad. Point is that you need to make a lot of money to not have to think twice about pricey privates.

You are the exact point of this thread. Even up to 400k of income, well beyond the threshold of financial aid, full pay at a private college is an iffy proposition. The upper middle class is being hollowed out at these schools, where the pricing architecture favors middle to low income and the very affluent.

But it’s always been an iffy proposition. Families have always decided (correctly) that a state school education was great. My own parents in the 90’s decided that they didn’t want to pay for an Ivy education since there were three of us and sent me to the state flagship honors program for basically free. Great decision. We will make a different decision for their grandchildren even though the relative cost is higher for us than it was for them. Making choices about whether to splurge on something that is not necessary will always be a personal choice.

But the point is, the math has changed over the decades. The cost of attendance has risen faster than inflation. Meanwhile, financial aid for low income students has become more generous thanks to swollen endowments. The top schools are increasingly becoming filled with kids who qualify for substantial aid (in fact a majority of students) and kids who qualify for no aid and their parents still send them there because they are very wealthy and money is not an object. This trend is only continuing. Perhaps soon all the top schools will look like Trinity College. A bunch of kids on financial aid and then like half the class filled with rich white prep school kids who like to party and don't really have much interest in books. This is where we are headed because pretty soon it will be 100k/yr and the number of families prepared to pay that kind of money will become lower and lower.

If your kid is in a freshman now, they'll easily get there. GW has an on campus cost of attendance of 85k, if that goes up 4% a year it will be 99k in 4 years. There is a reason that schools are desperate to bury their actual cost of attendance behind and below average cost of attendance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor or Rich

Middle class are fukced

This^. They really push UMC in LMC with $85K/ year for 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My spouse and I combined make just over $400k and live in Chevy Chase. My kid got into ND for class of 2027. But we are seriously thinking about sending her to UMD or Clemson, where she has money at both. We haven’t always made $400k, we have three kids and $330k is a lot for undergrad. Point is that you need to make a lot of money to not have to think twice about pricey privates.

You are the exact point of this thread. Even up to 400k of income, well beyond the threshold of financial aid, full pay at a private college is an iffy proposition. The upper middle class is being hollowed out at these schools, where the pricing architecture favors middle to low income and the very affluent.

But it’s always been an iffy proposition. Families have always decided (correctly) that a state school education was great. My own parents in the 90’s decided that they didn’t want to pay for an Ivy education since there were three of us and sent me to the state flagship honors program for basically free. Great decision. We will make a different decision for their grandchildren even though the relative cost is higher for us than it was for them. Making choices about whether to splurge on something that is not necessary will always be a personal choice.

But the point is, the math has changed over the decades. The cost of attendance has risen faster than inflation. Meanwhile, financial aid for low income students has become more generous thanks to swollen endowments. The top schools are increasingly becoming filled with kids who qualify for substantial aid (in fact a majority of students) and kids who qualify for no aid and their parents still send them there because they are very wealthy and money is not an object. This trend is only continuing. Perhaps soon all the top schools will look like Trinity College. A bunch of kids on financial aid and then like half the class filled with rich white prep school kids who like to party and don't really have much interest in books. This is where we are headed because pretty soon it will be 100k/yr and the number of families prepared to pay that kind of money will become lower and lower.

If your kid is in a freshman now, they'll easily get there. GW has an on campus cost of attendance of 85k, if that goes up 4% a year it will be 99k in 4 years. There is a reason that schools are desperate to bury their actual cost of attendance behind and below average cost of attendance

This^. You always hear about "average low cost of attendance".

[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: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.

But many of us who are bringing in $10-11 K a month after taxes now were making not much more than half of that when our kids were young and also in day care.

And you may be earning nothing a few years later when you turn 55 and get laid off and can’t find a new job because of DEI.

So put 50% of increases into retirement and 50% into college. Personally, I'd make sure both are well funded, and I'd consider not spending $80K/year when there are many great options at $40-50K. But once again, it's your choice to want to send your kid to a T25 instead of a T80

First of all, I am not someone who is worried about paying for college. This isn’t about me personally. But listen to your reaction. You are basically saying ok so you are UMC - so just don’t send your kid to a top 25 college. Would you say the same thing to a low income person?

Your child has other options (state schools or schools with token merit aid, both of which are options where no loans would be needed) that low-income students don’t have. They would need loans for non-top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor or Rich

Middle class are fukced

You’re only seeing the “lucky” poor who got into top schools. Go visit California and see all the talented poor kids at community college.

[Anonymous]

A lot of people who claim to be "donut hole" families have lived lives of increasing lifestyle creep as their incomes have climbed up 200k, and then want to complain that they don't get enough need-based aid. Well, did you really need a new car every 5 years? Expensive vacations? To redo the kitchen?

If you want to argue that a family making over 200k is middle class, then live like middle class people -- budget, accept you won't be able to afford everything you want to do, and sock money away for retirement and college.

We make well under 200k and this is what we do, and we have friends making over who go out to eat three nights a week, drive luxury cars, and take multiple vacations overseas every year, have weekly cleaners, etc. Those people are not entitled to need-based aid. It's not my fault, or the college's fault, that they chose to just live nicer, more luxurious, easier lives instead of saving their additional income for their child's education. We've scrimped and saved and still won't have enough. AND work in helping professions. I don't cry myself to sleep over the doctors and consultants and well-paid feds who will be disappointed in their FA award while crying into their Tesla upholstery and trying to console themselves on the flight to Aruba. Boo freaking hoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t know poor people make $150k or $100k.

Exactly.

These posters are so ridiculous.

Yeah, tons of poors at Harvard Princeton or Yale.

Once again, if top colleges are giving you a full or half ride, then you are "poor". Poor is a relative term (as is rich).

[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.

"luxury" living in CA means making $1mil.

[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.

Nobody is against poor kids getting free education but asking to lower college cost for all or tie it to waivers for few years in public service jobs.
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.

But many of us who are bringing in $10-11 K a month after taxes now were making not much more than half of that when our kids were young and also in day care.

And you may be earning nothing a few years later when you turn 55 and get laid off and can’t find a new job because of DEI.

So put 50% of increases into retirement and 50% into college. Personally, I'd make sure both are well funded, and I'd consider not spending $80K/year when there are many great options at $40-50K. But once again, it's your choice to want to send your kid to a T25 instead of a T80

First of all, I am not someone who is worried about paying for college. This isn’t about me personally. But listen to your reaction. You are basically saying ok so you are UMC - so just don’t send your kid to a top 25 college. Would you say the same thing to a low income person?

Your child has other options (state schools or schools with token merit aid, both of which are options where no loans would be needed) that low-income students don’t have. They would need loans for non-top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people who claim to be "donut hole" families have lived lives of increasing lifestyle creep as their incomes have climbed up 200k, and then want to complain that they don't get enough need-based aid. Well, did you really need a new car every 5 years? Expensive vacations? To redo the kitchen?

If you want to argue that a family making over 200k is middle class, then live like middle class people -- budget, accept you won't be able to afford everything you want to do, and sock money away for retirement and college.

We make well under 200k and this is what we do, and we have friends making over who go out to eat three nights a week, drive luxury cars, and take multiple vacations overseas every year, have weekly cleaners, etc. Those people are not entitled to need-based aid. It's not my fault, or the college's fault, that they chose to just live nicer, more luxurious, easier lives instead of saving their additional income for their child's education. We've scrimped and saved and still won't have enough. AND work in helping professions. I don't cry myself to sleep over the doctors and consultants and well-paid feds who will be disappointed in their FA award while crying into their Tesla upholstery and trying to console themselves on the flight to Aruba. Boo freaking hoo.

That's fine but look what you've done. You've sacrificed your whole life only to be ripped off by a system where more than half the kids are practically going for free, while maybe a quarter of the parents are rich people for whom $320k is a fraction of an annual bonus. You are kind of the sucker here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people who claim to be "donut hole" families have lived lives of increasing lifestyle creep as their incomes have climbed up 200k, and then want to complain that they don't get enough need-based aid. Well, did you really need a new car every 5 years? Expensive vacations? To redo the kitchen?

If you want to argue that a family making over 200k is middle class, then live like middle class people -- budget, accept you won't be able to afford everything you want to do, and sock money away for retirement and college.

We make well under 200k and this is what we do, and we have friends making over who go out to eat three nights a week, drive luxury cars, and take multiple vacations overseas every year, have weekly cleaners, etc. Those people are not entitled to need-based aid. It's not my fault, or the college's fault, that they chose to just live nicer, more luxurious, easier lives instead of saving their additional income for their child's education. We've scrimped and saved and still won't have enough. AND work in helping professions. I don't cry myself to sleep over the doctors and consultants and well-paid feds who will be disappointed in their FA award while crying into their Tesla upholstery and trying to console themselves on the flight to Aruba. Boo freaking hoo.

We make around 200k. Kids have never been abroad. Most vacations are to relatives, but we'll do long weekends at a cheap OBX hotel. Our cars get replaced at the 15 year mark and are not luxury. We still will not be able to pay 4x our annual income to put two kids through college. It's not a big deal because they can go to state school, but people pretending that people should attempt to live in poverty for the off chance that their kid gets into Harvard are insufferable.