When the reality of college cost hits. Cannot do dream school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

That is exactly what Ivies (excluding Princeton) ask of families such as described. We were in the same position last year with slightly higher income and the schools asked for between $63k and $72k. It’s obscene how bad the financial aid is at the Ivy league level.

Not to be a turd by why do the schools "owe" you aid? Going to an Ivy is a privilege, not a right. If you can't make it work, I'm sorry. Lots of other great schools out there that might be cheaper.

And sorry if people have multiple kids. Should have thought about that before having more kids (I feel a bit worse for those with twins). I knew what I wanted to be able to pay for for my kids and that having more than two kids would prohibit that, so we stopped at two. Three would have been nice but the sacrifices weren't worth it. Plus the fact that you get more aid if you have two kids in college at the same time but less if kids are further apart? That makes no sense.

Because we as a country still like to believe in the myth of meritocracy, that elite college slots goes to those who earned it on merit, and that college is the gateway to upward social mobility. And these elite institutions with more money than entire countries pay virtually no taxes on the assumption that they're doing a public good and serving society.

And it's very fair to question the outrageous cost of higher education. It's like this nowhere else in the world. Even UVA in-state is over $40,000 per year. That is not accessible or affordable to the vast majority of Virginians. An undergrad can't borrow enough to cover even a quarter of that.

Upward social mobility isn't always zero to sixty in one step. Sometimes it is multi-generational. Poor FGLI kid goes to a good state school to step up the social class ladder. Then perhaps their kid makes the next jump to Ivies.

I am supportive of financial aid and helping families. But I think that schools have gone overboard with the virtue signaling and tripping over themselves to attract low income families. Some number of them is great, particularly the many who truly deserve to be there - as you said, "meritocracy." But diversity for the sake of diversity, which is currently often the case, is going too far. I think the NY Times had an article a year or two ago basically shaming schools for not having enough poor kids. Really? If it was zero I would get it. But they all had a fair amount and the Times was making huge generalizations saying the school with 12% is much worse than the one with 14%, which is basically statistical noise and still more than enough. I say this as a lifelong Democrat.

[Anonymous]

What option does DC have if not the Ivy?

[Anonymous]

It sucks but on the other hand, DD knew we couldn’t afford an Ivy after we did NPC calculator. She crossed off ivies, Chicago, northwestern and focused on WASP schools, which were much more generous. NPC calculator was accurate (did ED).

Hard lesson but for people with younger kids - run NPC calculator for schools and have honest discussions with your kids before they apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

That is exactly what Ivies (excluding Princeton) ask of families such as described. We were in the same position last year with slightly higher income and the schools asked for between $63k and $72k. It’s obscene how bad the financial aid is at the Ivy league level.

Not to be a turd by why do the schools "owe" you aid? Going to an Ivy is a privilege, not a right. If you can't make it work, I'm sorry. Lots of other great schools out there that might be cheaper.

And sorry if people have multiple kids. Should have thought about that before having more kids (I feel a bit worse for those with twins). I knew what I wanted to be able to pay for for my kids and that having more than two kids would prohibit that, so we stopped at two. Three would have been nice but the sacrifices weren't worth it. Plus the fact that you get more aid if you have two kids in college at the same time but less if kids are further apart? That makes no sense.

Because we as a country still like to believe in the myth of meritocracy, that elite college slots goes to those who earned it on merit, and that college is the gateway to upward social mobility. And these elite institutions with more money than entire countries pay virtually no taxes on the assumption that they're doing a public good and serving society.

And it's very fair to question the outrageous cost of higher education. It's like this nowhere else in the world. Even UVA in-state is over $40,000 per year. That is not accessible or affordable to the vast majority of Virginians. An undergrad can't borrow enough to cover even a quarter of that.

Upward social mobility isn't always zero to sixty in one step. Sometimes it is multi-generational. Poor FGLI kid goes to a good state school to step up the social class ladder. Then perhaps their kid makes the next jump to Ivies.

I am supportive of financial aid and helping families. But I think that schools have gone overboard with the virtue signaling and tripping over themselves to attract low income families. Some number of them is great, particularly the many who truly deserve to be there - as you said, "meritocracy." But diversity for the sake of diversity, which is currently often the case, is going too far. I think the NY Times had an article a year or two ago basically shaming schools for not having enough poor kids. Really? If it was zero I would get it. But they all had a fair amount and the Times was making huge generalizations saying the school with 12% is much worse than the one with 14%, which is basically statistical noise and still more than enough. I say this as a lifelong Democrat.

This is a weird take. Most people acknowledge that smart kids with raw talent can come from any income group. Most people who go to an elite college want to be surrounded by the best and the brightest. If only kids whose parents can afford nearly 100k per year to attend, the students won’t be the best and the brightest, and it won’t be the educational experience marketed.

Right now, most ivies have only about half of families receiving ANY aid at all. That means half come from families making enough money to shell out around 100k a year. That’s an insanely out-of-whack distribution. It means that most students come from the top 5% in terms of wealth, even though intelligence isn’t distributed accordingly. That’s worthy of criticism. It’s especially worthy of criticism when these schools have tens of billions in assets shielded from tax liability but exist to overwhelmingly serve the rich. It’s not right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

I’m actually with this person. All of the Ivies either exclude home equity or cap it at a low multiple of income when considering how much the parents have in assets. Most (all?) also take into account medical expenses not covered by insurance.

I ran the Columbia (who I think uses the highest multiple of income for home equity) NPC calculator quickly with the limited info OP provided and some generous assumptions and it only had a family contribution of $19k, with Columbia picking up $78k. There are some major assets missing from this story.

I ran it again with even more generous (and probably unrealistic) assumptions and it spit out a family contribution of $29k with Columbia covering $68k. Something is missing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

That is exactly what Ivies (excluding Princeton) ask of families such as described. We were in the same position last year with slightly higher income and the schools asked for between $63k and $72k. It’s obscene how bad the financial aid is at the Ivy league level.

Not to be a turd by why do the schools "owe" you aid? Going to an Ivy is a privilege, not a right. If you can't make it work, I'm sorry. Lots of other great schools out there that might be cheaper.

And sorry if people have multiple kids. Should have thought about that before having more kids (I feel a bit worse for those with twins). I knew what I wanted to be able to pay for for my kids and that having more than two kids would prohibit that, so we stopped at two. Three would have been nice but the sacrifices weren't worth it. Plus the fact that you get more aid if you have two kids in college at the same time but less if kids are further apart? That makes no sense.

Because we as a country still like to believe in the myth of meritocracy, that elite college slots goes to those who earned it on merit, and that college is the gateway to upward social mobility. And these elite institutions with more money than entire countries pay virtually no taxes on the assumption that they're doing a public good and serving society.

And it's very fair to question the outrageous cost of higher education. It's like this nowhere else in the world. Even UVA in-state is over $40,000 per year. That is not accessible or affordable to the vast majority of Virginians. An undergrad can't borrow enough to cover even a quarter of that.

Upward social mobility isn't always zero to sixty in one step. Sometimes it is multi-generational. Poor FGLI kid goes to a good state school to step up the social class ladder. Then perhaps their kid makes the next jump to Ivies.

I am supportive of financial aid and helping families. But I think that schools have gone overboard with the virtue signaling and tripping over themselves to attract low income families. Some number of them is great, particularly the many who truly deserve to be there - as you said, "meritocracy." But diversity for the sake of diversity, which is currently often the case, is going too far. I think the NY Times had an article a year or two ago basically shaming schools for not having enough poor kids. Really? If it was zero I would get it. But they all had a fair amount and the Times was making huge generalizations saying the school with 12% is much worse than the one with 14%, which is basically statistical noise and still more than enough. I say this as a lifelong Democrat.

This is a weird take. Most people acknowledge that smart kids with raw talent can come from any income group. Most people who go to an elite college want to be surrounded by the best and the brightest. If only kids whose parents can afford nearly 100k per year to attend, the students won’t be the best and the brightest, and it won’t be the educational experience marketed.

Right now, most ivies have only about half of families receiving ANY aid at all. That means half come from families making enough money to shell out around 100k a year. That’s an insanely out-of-whack distribution. It means that most students come from the top 5% in terms of wealth, even though intelligence isn’t distributed accordingly. That’s worthy of criticism. It’s especially worthy of criticism when these schools have tens of billions in assets shielded from tax liability but exist to overwhelmingly serve the rich. It’s not right.

I'm supportive of financial aid. But I think it has gone too far. Big difference. The whole "you owe nothing if your family makes under $200k" irks me. I'm not saying give them nothing. But that is sufficient for them to have a little skin in the game. If you were consistently making $150k plus for a few years leading up to your kid going to college, you could have been saving a little bit. Not a lot. But something.

And your kid can get a job. Personally, I wish admissions committees screamed from the rooftops that they look favorably upon kids who work, including and particularly service jobs like waiters, scooping ice cream, or whatever else - it shows a good work ethic and builds character and people skills. I think this is much more impressive than most of the phony extra-curriculars that kids do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

That is exactly what Ivies (excluding Princeton) ask of families such as described. We were in the same position last year with slightly higher income and the schools asked for between $63k and $72k. It’s obscene how bad the financial aid is at the Ivy league level.

Not to be a turd by why do the schools "owe" you aid? Going to an Ivy is a privilege, not a right. If you can't make it work, I'm sorry. Lots of other great schools out there that might be cheaper.

And sorry if people have multiple kids. Should have thought about that before having more kids (I feel a bit worse for those with twins). I knew what I wanted to be able to pay for for my kids and that having more than two kids would prohibit that, so we stopped at two. Three would have been nice but the sacrifices weren't worth it. Plus the fact that you get more aid if you have two kids in college at the same time but less if kids are further apart? That makes no sense.

Because we as a country still like to believe in the myth of meritocracy, that elite college slots goes to those who earned it on merit, and that college is the gateway to upward social mobility. And these elite institutions with more money than entire countries pay virtually no taxes on the assumption that they're doing a public good and serving society.

And it's very fair to question the outrageous cost of higher education. It's like this nowhere else in the world. Even UVA in-state is over $40,000 per year. That is not accessible or affordable to the vast majority of Virginians. An undergrad can't borrow enough to cover even a quarter of that.

Upward social mobility isn't always zero to sixty in one step. Sometimes it is multi-generational. Poor FGLI kid goes to a good state school to step up the social class ladder. Then perhaps their kid makes the next jump to Ivies.

I am supportive of financial aid and helping families. But I think that schools have gone overboard with the virtue signaling and tripping over themselves to attract low income families. Some number of them is great, particularly the many who truly deserve to be there - as you said, "meritocracy." But diversity for the sake of diversity, which is currently often the case, is going too far. I think the NY Times had an article a year or two ago basically shaming schools for not having enough poor kids. Really? If it was zero I would get it. But they all had a fair amount and the Times was making huge generalizations saying the school with 12% is much worse than the one with 14%, which is basically statistical noise and still more than enough. I say this as a lifelong Democrat.

This is a weird take. Most people acknowledge that smart kids with raw talent can come from any income group. Most people who go to an elite college want to be surrounded by the best and the brightest. If only kids whose parents can afford nearly 100k per year to attend, the students won’t be the best and the brightest, and it won’t be the educational experience marketed.

Right now, most ivies have only about half of families receiving ANY aid at all. That means half come from families making enough money to shell out around 100k a year. That’s an insanely out-of-whack distribution. It means that most students come from the top 5% in terms of wealth, even though intelligence isn’t distributed accordingly. That’s worthy of criticism. It’s especially worthy of criticism when these schools have tens of billions in assets shielded from tax liability but exist to overwhelmingly serve the rich. It’s not right.

I'm supportive of financial aid. But I think it has gone too far. Big difference. The whole "you owe nothing if your family makes under $200k" irks me. I'm not saying give them nothing. But that is sufficient for them to have a little skin in the game. If you were consistently making $150k plus for a few years leading up to your kid going to college, you could have been saving a little bit. Not a lot. But something.

And your kid can get a job. Personally, I wish admissions committees screamed from the rooftops that they look favorably upon kids who work, including and particularly service jobs like waiters, scooping ice cream, or whatever else - it shows a good work ethic and builds character and people skills. I think this is much more impressive than most of the phony extra-curriculars that kids do.

What's your income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

I’m actually with this person. All of the Ivies either exclude home equity or cap it at a low multiple of income when considering how much the parents have in assets. Most (all?) also take into account medical expenses not covered by insurance.

I ran the Columbia (who I think uses the highest multiple of income for home equity) NPC calculator quickly with the limited info OP provided and some generous assumptions and it only had a family contribution of $19k, with Columbia picking up $78k. There are some major assets missing from this story.

I ran it again with even more generous (and probably unrealistic) assumptions and it spit out a family contribution of $29k with Columbia covering $68k. Something is missing here.

No there isn't. This is a common scenario, sadly.

[Anonymous]

Something is missing here.

Agree. Plus, 2 teachers should have known enough to test the NPC before their kid applied. If there were extenuating circumstances, they should have been discussed with the college no later than when the application was submitted.

The one sticky part of this is a lot of times colleges won't you hold back money for younger kids and a lot of parents feel obligated to do this. BUt that's because aid for the younger kids will be based on income and assets when they apply.

THere are also cases in which the kids don't go to college at all; take a merit scholarship so the anticipated cost of college is lower, choose to co to a CC and transfer for non-financial reasons, etc.

I had a client who worried about paying for his kids for years. One got a ROTC scholarship. One went to Annapolis. The total cost of college was a lot less than he and his wife had planned for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

That is exactly what Ivies (excluding Princeton) ask of families such as described. We were in the same position last year with slightly higher income and the schools asked for between $63k and $72k. It’s obscene how bad the financial aid is at the Ivy league level.

Not to be a turd by why do the schools "owe" you aid? Going to an Ivy is a privilege, not a right. If you can't make it work, I'm sorry. Lots of other great schools out there that might be cheaper.

And sorry if people have multiple kids. Should have thought about that before having more kids (I feel a bit worse for those with twins). I knew what I wanted to be able to pay for for my kids and that having more than two kids would prohibit that, so we stopped at two. Three would have been nice but the sacrifices weren't worth it. Plus the fact that you get more aid if you have two kids in college at the same time but less if kids are further apart? That makes no sense.

Because we as a country still like to believe in the myth of meritocracy, that elite college slots goes to those who earned it on merit, and that college is the gateway to upward social mobility. And these elite institutions with more money than entire countries pay virtually no taxes on the assumption that they're doing a public good and serving society.

And it's very fair to question the outrageous cost of higher education. It's like this nowhere else in the world. Even UVA in-state is over $40,000 per year. That is not accessible or affordable to the vast majority of Virginians. An undergrad can't borrow enough to cover even a quarter of that.

Upward social mobility isn't always zero to sixty in one step. Sometimes it is multi-generational. Poor FGLI kid goes to a good state school to step up the social class ladder. Then perhaps their kid makes the next jump to Ivies.

I am supportive of financial aid and helping families. But I think that schools have gone overboard with the virtue signaling and tripping over themselves to attract low income families. Some number of them is great, particularly the many who truly deserve to be there - as you said, "meritocracy." But diversity for the sake of diversity, which is currently often the case, is going too far. I think the NY Times had an article a year or two ago basically shaming schools for not having enough poor kids. Really? If it was zero I would get it. But they all had a fair amount and the Times was making huge generalizations saying the school with 12% is much worse than the one with 14%, which is basically statistical noise and still more than enough. I say this as a lifelong Democrat.

This is a weird take. Most people acknowledge that smart kids with raw talent can come from any income group. Most people who go to an elite college want to be surrounded by the best and the brightest. If only kids whose parents can afford nearly 100k per year to attend, the students won’t be the best and the brightest, and it won’t be the educational experience marketed.

Right now, most ivies have only about half of families receiving ANY aid at all. That means half come from families making enough money to shell out around 100k a year. That’s an insanely out-of-whack distribution. It means that most students come from the top 5% in terms of wealth, even though intelligence isn’t distributed accordingly. That’s worthy of criticism. It’s especially worthy of criticism when these schools have tens of billions in assets shielded from tax liability but exist to overwhelmingly serve the rich. It’s not right.

I'm supportive of financial aid. But I think it has gone too far. Big difference. The whole "you owe nothing if your family makes under $200k" irks me. I'm not saying give them nothing. But that is sufficient for them to have a little skin in the game. If you were consistently making $150k plus for a few years leading up to your kid going to college, you could have been saving a little bit. Not a lot. But something.

And your kid can get a job. Personally, I wish admissions committees screamed from the rooftops that they look favorably upon kids who work, including and particularly service jobs like waiters, scooping ice cream, or whatever else - it shows a good work ethic and builds character and people skills. I think this is much more impressive than most of the phony extra-curriculars that kids do.

What's your income?

Similar to OP and making decisions accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

That is exactly what Ivies (excluding Princeton) ask of families such as described. We were in the same position last year with slightly higher income and the schools asked for between $63k and $72k. It’s obscene how bad the financial aid is at the Ivy league level.

Not to be a turd by why do the schools "owe" you aid? Going to an Ivy is a privilege, not a right. If you can't make it work, I'm sorry. Lots of other great schools out there that might be cheaper.

And sorry if people have multiple kids. Should have thought about that before having more kids (I feel a bit worse for those with twins). I knew what I wanted to be able to pay for for my kids and that having more than two kids would prohibit that, so we stopped at two. Three would have been nice but the sacrifices weren't worth it. Plus the fact that you get more aid if you have two kids in college at the same time but less if kids are further apart? That makes no sense.

Because we as a country still like to believe in the myth of meritocracy, that elite college slots goes to those who earned it on merit, and that college is the gateway to upward social mobility. And these elite institutions with more money than entire countries pay virtually no taxes on the assumption that they're doing a public good and serving society.

And it's very fair to question the outrageous cost of higher education. It's like this nowhere else in the world. Even UVA in-state is over $40,000 per year. That is not accessible or affordable to the vast majority of Virginians. An undergrad can't borrow enough to cover even a quarter of that.

Upward social mobility isn't always zero to sixty in one step. Sometimes it is multi-generational. Poor FGLI kid goes to a good state school to step up the social class ladder. Then perhaps their kid makes the next jump to Ivies.

I am supportive of financial aid and helping families. But I think that schools have gone overboard with the virtue signaling and tripping over themselves to attract low income families. Some number of them is great, particularly the many who truly deserve to be there - as you said, "meritocracy." But diversity for the sake of diversity, which is currently often the case, is going too far. I think the NY Times had an article a year or two ago basically shaming schools for not having enough poor kids. Really? If it was zero I would get it. But they all had a fair amount and the Times was making huge generalizations saying the school with 12% is much worse than the one with 14%, which is basically statistical noise and still more than enough. I say this as a lifelong Democrat.

This is a weird take. Most people acknowledge that smart kids with raw talent can come from any income group. Most people who go to an elite college want to be surrounded by the best and the brightest. If only kids whose parents can afford nearly 100k per year to attend, the students won’t be the best and the brightest, and it won’t be the educational experience marketed.

Right now, most ivies have only about half of families receiving ANY aid at all. That means half come from families making enough money to shell out around 100k a year. That’s an insanely out-of-whack distribution. It means that most students come from the top 5% in terms of wealth, even though intelligence isn’t distributed accordingly. That’s worthy of criticism. It’s especially worthy of criticism when these schools have tens of billions in assets shielded from tax liability but exist to overwhelmingly serve the rich. It’s not right.

Keep in mind kids from this income level generally score hundreds of points higher than kids from lower socio economic levels. Intelligence may be distributed equally but being educated in far superior schools for 13 years makes a huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know interest rates stink but what about a HELOC off the value of the house?

Can the kid defer a year, live at home and work to save up some money?

Agree with above to challenge the aid calculation?

very bad advice except for the last statement. No undergrad education is worth messing up with life savings.
It’s sad and unfair, but the kid is bright. She can aim for top grad schools in her field. I know a kid who gave up Yale for a full ride at T40. He moved on pretty fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

That is exactly what Ivies (excluding Princeton) ask of families such as described. We were in the same position last year with slightly higher income and the schools asked for between $63k and $72k. It’s obscene how bad the financial aid is at the Ivy league level.

Not to be a turd by why do the schools "owe" you aid? Going to an Ivy is a privilege, not a right. If you can't make it work, I'm sorry. Lots of other great schools out there that might be cheaper.

And sorry if people have multiple kids. Should have thought about that before having more kids (I feel a bit worse for those with twins). I knew what I wanted to be able to pay for for my kids and that having more than two kids would prohibit that, so we stopped at two. Three would have been nice but the sacrifices weren't worth it. Plus the fact that you get more aid if you have two kids in college at the same time but less if kids are further apart? That makes no sense.

Because we as a country still like to believe in the myth of meritocracy, that elite college slots goes to those who earned it on merit, and that college is the gateway to upward social mobility. And these elite institutions with more money than entire countries pay virtually no taxes on the assumption that they're doing a public good and serving society.

And it's very fair to question the outrageous cost of higher education. It's like this nowhere else in the world. Even UVA in-state is over $40,000 per year. That is not accessible or affordable to the vast majority of Virginians. An undergrad can't borrow enough to cover even a quarter of that.

Upward social mobility isn't always zero to sixty in one step. Sometimes it is multi-generational. Poor FGLI kid goes to a good state school to step up the social class ladder. Then perhaps their kid makes the next jump to Ivies.

I am supportive of financial aid and helping families. But I think that schools have gone overboard with the virtue signaling and tripping over themselves to attract low income families. Some number of them is great, particularly the many who truly deserve to be there - as you said, "meritocracy." But diversity for the sake of diversity, which is currently often the case, is going too far. I think the NY Times had an article a year or two ago basically shaming schools for not having enough poor kids. Really? If it was zero I would get it. But they all had a fair amount and the Times was making huge generalizations saying the school with 12% is much worse than the one with 14%, which is basically statistical noise and still more than enough. I say this as a lifelong Democrat.

This is a weird take. Most people acknowledge that smart kids with raw talent can come from any income group. Most people who go to an elite college want to be surrounded by the best and the brightest. If only kids whose parents can afford nearly 100k per year to attend, the students won’t be the best and the brightest, and it won’t be the educational experience marketed.

Right now, most ivies have only about half of families receiving ANY aid at all. That means half come from families making enough money to shell out around 100k a year. That’s an insanely out-of-whack distribution. It means that most students come from the top 5% in terms of wealth, even though intelligence isn’t distributed accordingly. That’s worthy of criticism. It’s especially worthy of criticism when these schools have tens of billions in assets shielded from tax liability but exist to overwhelmingly serve the rich. It’s not right.

Keep in mind kids from this income level generally score hundreds of points higher than kids from lower socio economic levels. Intelligence may be distributed equally but being educated in far superior schools for 13 years makes a huge difference.

The SAT distribution according to income isn’t even as close to skewed as Ivy income distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

I’m actually with this person. All of the Ivies either exclude home equity or cap it at a low multiple of income when considering how much the parents have in assets. Most (all?) also take into account medical expenses not covered by insurance.

I ran the Columbia (who I think uses the highest multiple of income for home equity) NPC calculator quickly with the limited info OP provided and some generous assumptions and it only had a family contribution of $19k, with Columbia picking up $78k. There are some major assets missing from this story.

I ran it again with even more generous (and probably unrealistic) assumptions and it spit out a family contribution of $29k with Columbia covering $68k. Something is missing here.

Did op kid get into ivy or columbia? Why are you mentioning Columbia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe you

This is an odd post.

Under the circumstances OP has described, I don't believe an Ivy would require the parents to pay 75k. I just don't.

That is exactly what Ivies (excluding Princeton) ask of families such as described. We were in the same position last year with slightly higher income and the schools asked for between $63k and $72k. It’s obscene how bad the financial aid is at the Ivy league level.

Not to be a turd by why do the schools "owe" you aid? Going to an Ivy is a privilege, not a right. If you can't make it work, I'm sorry. Lots of other great schools out there that might be cheaper.

And sorry if people have multiple kids. Should have thought about that before having more kids (I feel a bit worse for those with twins). I knew what I wanted to be able to pay for for my kids and that having more than two kids would prohibit that, so we stopped at two. Three would have been nice but the sacrifices weren't worth it. Plus the fact that you get more aid if you have two kids in college at the same time but less if kids are further apart? That makes no sense.

Because we as a country still like to believe in the myth of meritocracy, that elite college slots goes to those who earned it on merit, and that college is the gateway to upward social mobility. And these elite institutions with more money than entire countries pay virtually no taxes on the assumption that they're doing a public good and serving society.

And it's very fair to question the outrageous cost of higher education. It's like this nowhere else in the world. Even UVA in-state is over $40,000 per year. That is not accessible or affordable to the vast majority of Virginians. An undergrad can't borrow enough to cover even a quarter of that.

Upward social mobility isn't always zero to sixty in one step. Sometimes it is multi-generational. Poor FGLI kid goes to a good state school to step up the social class ladder. Then perhaps their kid makes the next jump to Ivies.

I am supportive of financial aid and helping families. But I think that schools have gone overboard with the virtue signaling and tripping over themselves to attract low income families. Some number of them is great, particularly the many who truly deserve to be there - as you said, "meritocracy." But diversity for the sake of diversity, which is currently often the case, is going too far. I think the NY Times had an article a year or two ago basically shaming schools for not having enough poor kids. Really? If it was zero I would get it. But they all had a fair amount and the Times was making huge generalizations saying the school with 12% is much worse than the one with 14%, which is basically statistical noise and still more than enough. I say this as a lifelong Democrat.

This is a weird take. Most people acknowledge that smart kids with raw talent can come from any income group. Most people who go to an elite college want to be surrounded by the best and the brightest. If only kids whose parents can afford nearly 100k per year to attend, the students won’t be the best and the brightest, and it won’t be the educational experience marketed.

Right now, most ivies have only about half of families receiving ANY aid at all. That means half come from families making enough money to shell out around 100k a year. That’s an insanely out-of-whack distribution. It means that most students come from the top 5% in terms of wealth, even though intelligence isn’t distributed accordingly. That’s worthy of criticism. It’s especially worthy of criticism when these schools have tens of billions in assets shielded from tax liability but exist to overwhelmingly serve the rich. It’s not right.

I'm supportive of financial aid. But I think it has gone too far. Big difference. The whole "you owe nothing if your family makes under $200k" irks me. I'm not saying give them nothing. But that is sufficient for them to have a little skin in the game. If you were consistently making $150k plus for a few years leading up to your kid going to college, you could have been saving a little bit. Not a lot. But something.

And your kid can get a job. Personally, I wish admissions committees screamed from the rooftops that they look favorably upon kids who work, including and particularly service jobs like waiters, scooping ice cream, or whatever else - it shows a good work ethic and builds character and people skills. I think this is much more impressive than most of the phony extra-curriculars that kids do.

Not a single school has a policy that generous. Princeton, the most generous by far, provides full rides for up to 150k with typical assets. The other “guarantees” with relatively high qualifying incomes are for “free tuition.” In other words, the families qualifying for free tuition are still on the hook for nearly 30k in costs. It ain’t free.