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

[Anonymous]

I'm not seeing it. Our household income is $145,000. The net price calculators say our contribution at various private schools is under $300000 per year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But my point is that they are not inaccessible. They are just not “comfortably “accessible. Households making $200,000 could afford it if they were willing to live like as if they were making $125,000. The OP’s premise seems to be that middle-class people should be able to afford it without any impact on their lifestyle.

The $75K spread doesn't take the tax on the $200,000 income into account. Those people would have to live more like they were making less than $100K, taking taxes into account.

Moreover, that income doesn't go as far in e.g. DC as it does in Tulsa - and presumably the people earning it have not been earning it for 18 years. Whatever they were earning in the first 5-8 years was eaten up by daycare.

The costs of housing and healthcare have also risen dramatically in the last 40 years, making it all the harder for people to save.

Private and Parent Plus loans were not a thing before tuition soared out of control.

I agree with you that it is very difficult for families in that “UMC donut hole”, particularly those in high COL areas, to pay for the elite schools. I’m still not seeing how it’s a problem.

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But my point is that they are not inaccessible. They are just not “comfortably “accessible. Households making $200,000 could afford it if they were willing to live like as if they were making $125,000. The OP’s premise seems to be that middle-class people should be able to afford it without any impact on their lifestyle.

The $75K spread doesn't take the tax on the $200,000 income into account. Those people would have to live more like they were making less than $100K, taking taxes into account.

Moreover, that income doesn't go as far in e.g. DC as it does in Tulsa - and presumably the people earning it have not been earning it for 18 years. Whatever they were earning in the first 5-8 years was eaten up by daycare.

The costs of housing and healthcare have also risen dramatically in the last 40 years, making it all the harder for people to save.

Private and Parent Plus loans were not a thing before tuition soared out of control.

I agree with you that it is very difficult for families in that “UMC donut hole”, particularly those in high COL areas, to pay for the elite schools. I’m still not seeing how it’s a problem.

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

This. Is. Not. New.

Middle class kids have never been able to afford HYP. I had a community college prof who graduated HS in the 1990s and applied to Harvard on a lark. He got in but didn’t go. He was the only person I knew in my community who had even applied. No one from my high school conference of 8-9 high schools has sent any kid to an Ivy in the past 20 years. Maybe ever, but I can definitively say not in the past 20. Lots of impressive high achiever kids enrolling at Iowa State and U of Iowa.

The only difference between my experience graduating in the mid aughts and kids today is, if these kids did apply (they don’t) and they got in (probably wouldn’t, our high schools have no APs and no prestigious interesting extracurriculars) they would qualify for financial aid. But that’s actually *better* access than previous generations.

This is absolutely a story about entitlement. Rich, but not very rich, people who think they should be allowed to send their kids to top schools but fall short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not seeing it. Our household income is $145,000. The net price calculators say our contribution at various private schools is under $300000 per year[/quo


Wait until you enter home equity, then your contribution will go up, 10k per year in our case. 30,000 is basically your state school price.

[Anonymous]

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

+1000

Bernie's free college for everyone would benefit the UMC on a relative basis perhaps the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But my point is that they are not inaccessible. They are just not “comfortably “accessible. Households making $200,000 could afford it if they were willing to live like as if they were making $125,000. The OP’s premise seems to be that middle-class people should be able to afford it without any impact on their lifestyle.

The $75K spread doesn't take the tax on the $200,000 income into account. Those people would have to live more like they were making less than $100K, taking taxes into account.

Moreover, that income doesn't go as far in e.g. DC as it does in Tulsa - and presumably the people earning it have not been earning it for 18 years. Whatever they were earning in the first 5-8 years was eaten up by daycare.

The costs of housing and healthcare have also risen dramatically in the last 40 years, making it all the harder for people to save.

Private and Parent Plus loans were not a thing before tuition soared out of control.

I agree with you that it is very difficult for families in that “UMC donut hole”, particularly those in high COL areas, to pay for the elite schools. I’m still not seeing how it’s a problem.

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

This. Is. Not. New.

Middle class kids have never been able to afford HYP. I had a community college prof who graduated HS in the 1990s and applied to Harvard on a lark. He got in but didn’t go. He was the only person I knew in my community who had even applied. No one from my high school conference of 8-9 high schools has sent any kid to an Ivy in the past 20 years. Maybe ever, but I can definitively say not in the past 20. Lots of impressive high achiever kids enrolling at Iowa State and U of Iowa.

The only difference between my experience graduating in the mid aughts and kids today is, if these kids did apply (they don’t) and they got in (probably wouldn’t, our high schools have no APs and no prestigious interesting extracurriculars) they would qualify for financial aid. But that’s actually *better* access than previous generations.

This is absolutely a story about entitlement. Rich, but not very rich, people who think they should be allowed to send their kids to top schools but fall short.

It is new. You graduated in the mid aughts, not in 1983 (as I did). So it's not new to you, but it is new to those of us who went to college many decades ago.

I'm the PP whose expensive school cost $8,000 in 1979, and $75,000 today. My parents put SIX kids through private colleges in that era, without any student debt. That would be impossible today for everyone but the top 1%. In the 70s and 80s, middle class kids who qualified to attend HYP, could and did attend. When I was in high school, the mantra went, "if you can get in, there are ways to pay for it."

That is no longer true.

It. is. new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

+1000

Bernie's free college for everyone would benefit the UMC on a relative basis perhaps the most.

True. They’d keep paying for SAT prep and “pointy” extracurriculars while low income kids struggle. What a lovely program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But my point is that they are not inaccessible. They are just not “comfortably “accessible. Households making $200,000 could afford it if they were willing to live like as if they were making $125,000. The OP’s premise seems to be that middle-class people should be able to afford it without any impact on their lifestyle.

The $75K spread doesn't take the tax on the $200,000 income into account. Those people would have to live more like they were making less than $100K, taking taxes into account.

Moreover, that income doesn't go as far in e.g. DC as it does in Tulsa - and presumably the people earning it have not been earning it for 18 years. Whatever they were earning in the first 5-8 years was eaten up by daycare.

The costs of housing and healthcare have also risen dramatically in the last 40 years, making it all the harder for people to save.

Private and Parent Plus loans were not a thing before tuition soared out of control.

I agree with you that it is very difficult for families in that “UMC donut hole”, particularly those in high COL areas, to pay for the elite schools. I’m still not seeing how it’s a problem.

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

This. Is. Not. New.

Middle class kids have never been able to afford HYP. I had a community college prof who graduated HS in the 1990s and applied to Harvard on a lark. He got in but didn’t go. He was the only person I knew in my community who had even applied. No one from my high school conference of 8-9 high schools has sent any kid to an Ivy in the past 20 years. Maybe ever, but I can definitively say not in the past 20. Lots of impressive high achiever kids enrolling at Iowa State and U of Iowa.

The only difference between my experience graduating in the mid aughts and kids today is, if these kids did apply (they don’t) and they got in (probably wouldn’t, our high schools have no APs and no prestigious interesting extracurriculars) they would qualify for financial aid. But that’s actually *better* access than previous generations.

This is absolutely a story about entitlement. Rich, but not very rich, people who think they should be allowed to send their kids to top schools but fall short.

It is new. You graduated in the mid aughts, not in 1983 (as I did). So it's not new to you, but it is new to those of us who went to college many decades ago.

I'm the PP whose expensive school cost $8,000 in 1979, and $75,000 today. My parents put SIX kids through private colleges in that era, without any student debt. That would be impossible today for everyone but the top 1%. In the 70s and 80s, middle class kids who qualified to attend HYP, could and did attend. When I was in high school, the mantra went, "if you can get in, there are ways to pay for it."

That is no longer true.

It. is. new.

You’re really delusional. $8k in 1979 is over $28k in today’s dollars. You come from serious privilege and apparently don’t realize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But my point is that they are not inaccessible. They are just not “comfortably “accessible. Households making $200,000 could afford it if they were willing to live like as if they were making $125,000. The OP’s premise seems to be that middle-class people should be able to afford it without any impact on their lifestyle.

The $75K spread doesn't take the tax on the $200,000 income into account. Those people would have to live more like they were making less than $100K, taking taxes into account.

Moreover, that income doesn't go as far in e.g. DC as it does in Tulsa - and presumably the people earning it have not been earning it for 18 years. Whatever they were earning in the first 5-8 years was eaten up by daycare.

The costs of housing and healthcare have also risen dramatically in the last 40 years, making it all the harder for people to save.

Private and Parent Plus loans were not a thing before tuition soared out of control.

I agree with you that it is very difficult for families in that “UMC donut hole”, particularly those in high COL areas, to pay for the elite schools. I’m still not seeing how it’s a problem.

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

This. Is. Not. New.

Middle class kids have never been able to afford HYP. I had a community college prof who graduated HS in the 1990s and applied to Harvard on a lark. He got in but didn’t go. He was the only person I knew in my community who had even applied. No one from my high school conference of 8-9 high schools has sent any kid to an Ivy in the past 20 years. Maybe ever, but I can definitively say not in the past 20. Lots of impressive high achiever kids enrolling at Iowa State and U of Iowa.

The only difference between my experience graduating in the mid aughts and kids today is, if these kids did apply (they don’t) and they got in (probably wouldn’t, our high schools have no APs and no prestigious interesting extracurriculars) they would qualify for financial aid. But that’s actually *better* access than previous generations.

This is absolutely a story about entitlement. Rich, but not very rich, people who think they should be allowed to send their kids to top schools but fall short.

It is new. You graduated in the mid aughts, not in 1983 (as I did). So it's not new to you, but it is new to those of us who went to college many decades ago.

I'm the PP whose expensive school cost $8,000 in 1979, and $75,000 today. My parents put SIX kids through private colleges in that era, without any student debt. That would be impossible today for everyone but the top 1%. In the 70s and 80s, middle class kids who qualified to attend HYP, could and did attend. When I was in high school, the mantra went, "if you can get in, there are ways to pay for it."

That is no longer true.

It. is. new.

You’re really delusional. $8k in 1979 is over $28k in today’s dollars. You come from serious privilege and apparently don’t realize it.

Yes, that's right. Each of my parents' kids contributed at least a few, and often several thousand to tuition, room and board costs each year. In that era, summer and work-study earnings made a dent in the overall costs. I recall making about $3K over the course of a summer (May - August) by working two jobs, and handing over all but a few hundred to my parents towards expenses. A college student could contribute a good chunk of minimum-wage earnings towards her education in that era.

My brother took a year off from college to think about what he wanted to do, and worked full-time as a carpenter that year (this was in the mid-70s). He lived with my parents and banked his earnings - and when he returned (to HYP) the following year, he paid for most of the expenses from that money.

None of that is possible now because of how costs have skyrocketed.

There are other factors that made it feasible for my middle-class parents, including lower housing costs and lower healthcare costs. Those costs take a much bigger bite out of a family's HHI now than they did in the 70s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But my point is that they are not inaccessible. They are just not “comfortably “accessible. Households making $200,000 could afford it if they were willing to live like as if they were making $125,000. The OP’s premise seems to be that middle-class people should be able to afford it without any impact on their lifestyle.

The $75K spread doesn't take the tax on the $200,000 income into account. Those people would have to live more like they were making less than $100K, taking taxes into account.

Moreover, that income doesn't go as far in e.g. DC as it does in Tulsa - and presumably the people earning it have not been earning it for 18 years. Whatever they were earning in the first 5-8 years was eaten up by daycare.

The costs of housing and healthcare have also risen dramatically in the last 40 years, making it all the harder for people to save.

Private and Parent Plus loans were not a thing before tuition soared out of control.

I agree with you that it is very difficult for families in that “UMC donut hole”, particularly those in high COL areas, to pay for the elite schools. I’m still not seeing how it’s a problem.

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

This. Is. Not. New.

Middle class kids have never been able to afford HYP. I had a community college prof who graduated HS in the 1990s and applied to Harvard on a lark. He got in but didn’t go. He was the only person I knew in my community who had even applied. No one from my high school conference of 8-9 high schools has sent any kid to an Ivy in the past 20 years. Maybe ever, but I can definitively say not in the past 20. Lots of impressive high achiever kids enrolling at Iowa State and U of Iowa.

The only difference between my experience graduating in the mid aughts and kids today is, if these kids did apply (they don’t) and they got in (probably wouldn’t, our high schools have no APs and no prestigious interesting extracurriculars) they would qualify for financial aid. But that’s actually *better* access than previous generations.

This is absolutely a story about entitlement. Rich, but not very rich, people who think they should be allowed to send their kids to top schools but fall short.

It is new. You graduated in the mid aughts, not in 1983 (as I did). So it's not new to you, but it is new to those of us who went to college many decades ago.

I'm the PP whose expensive school cost $8,000 in 1979, and $75,000 today. My parents put SIX kids through private colleges in that era, without any student debt. That would be impossible today for everyone but the top 1%. In the 70s and 80s, middle class kids who qualified to attend HYP, could and did attend. When I was in high school, the mantra went, "if you can get in, there are ways to pay for it."

That is no longer true.

It. is. new.

You’re really delusional. $8k in 1979 is over $28k in today’s dollars. You come from serious privilege and apparently don’t realize it.

If $8K is over $28K in today's dollars, why does the same school cost $75K today?

How is that justifiable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But my point is that they are not inaccessible. They are just not “comfortably “accessible. Households making $200,000 could afford it if they were willing to live like as if they were making $125,000. The OP’s premise seems to be that middle-class people should be able to afford it without any impact on their lifestyle.

The $75K spread doesn't take the tax on the $200,000 income into account. Those people would have to live more like they were making less than $100K, taking taxes into account.

Moreover, that income doesn't go as far in e.g. DC as it does in Tulsa - and presumably the people earning it have not been earning it for 18 years. Whatever they were earning in the first 5-8 years was eaten up by daycare.

The costs of housing and healthcare have also risen dramatically in the last 40 years, making it all the harder for people to save.

Private and Parent Plus loans were not a thing before tuition soared out of control.

I agree with you that it is very difficult for families in that “UMC donut hole”, particularly those in high COL areas, to pay for the elite schools. I’m still not seeing how it’s a problem.

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

This. Is. Not. New.

Middle class kids have never been able to afford HYP. I had a community college prof who graduated HS in the 1990s and applied to Harvard on a lark. He got in but didn’t go. He was the only person I knew in my community who had even applied. No one from my high school conference of 8-9 high schools has sent any kid to an Ivy in the past 20 years. Maybe ever, but I can definitively say not in the past 20. Lots of impressive high achiever kids enrolling at Iowa State and U of Iowa.

The only difference between my experience graduating in the mid aughts and kids today is, if these kids did apply (they don’t) and they got in (probably wouldn’t, our high schools have no APs and no prestigious interesting extracurriculars) they would qualify for financial aid. But that’s actually *better* access than previous generations.

This is absolutely a story about entitlement. Rich, but not very rich, people who think they should be allowed to send their kids to top schools but fall short.

It is new. You graduated in the mid aughts, not in 1983 (as I did). So it's not new to you, but it is new to those of us who went to college many decades ago.

I'm the PP whose expensive school cost $8,000 in 1979, and $75,000 today. My parents put SIX kids through private colleges in that era, without any student debt. That would be impossible today for everyone but the top 1%. In the 70s and 80s, middle class kids who qualified to attend HYP, could and did attend. When I was in high school, the mantra went, "if you can get in, there are ways to pay for it."

That is no longer true.

It. is. new.

You’re really delusional. $8k in 1979 is over $28k in today’s dollars. You come from serious privilege and apparently don’t realize it.

Yes, that's right. Each of my parents' kids contributed at least a few, and often several thousand to tuition, room and board costs each year. In that era, summer and work-study earnings made a dent in the overall costs. I recall making about $3K over the course of a summer (May - August) by working two jobs, and handing over all but a few hundred to my parents towards expenses. A college student could contribute a good chunk of minimum-wage earnings towards her education in that era.

My brother took a year off from college to think about what he wanted to do, and worked full-time as a carpenter that year (this was in the mid-70s). He lived with my parents and banked his earnings - and when he returned (to HYP) the following year, he paid for most of the expenses from that money.

None of that is possible now because of how costs have skyrocketed.

There are other factors that made it feasible for my middle-class parents, including lower housing costs and lower healthcare costs. Those costs take a much bigger bite out of a family's HHI now than they did in the 70s.

Your parents had ALMOST $700k IN TODAY’S DOLLARS FOR SECONDARY ED and you’re holding your family up as an example of how our poor beleaguered wealthy Americans can’t afford HYP without loans? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But my point is that they are not inaccessible. They are just not “comfortably “accessible. Households making $200,000 could afford it if they were willing to live like as if they were making $125,000. The OP’s premise seems to be that middle-class people should be able to afford it without any impact on their lifestyle.

The $75K spread doesn't take the tax on the $200,000 income into account. Those people would have to live more like they were making less than $100K, taking taxes into account.

Moreover, that income doesn't go as far in e.g. DC as it does in Tulsa - and presumably the people earning it have not been earning it for 18 years. Whatever they were earning in the first 5-8 years was eaten up by daycare.

The costs of housing and healthcare have also risen dramatically in the last 40 years, making it all the harder for people to save.

Private and Parent Plus loans were not a thing before tuition soared out of control.

I agree with you that it is very difficult for families in that “UMC donut hole”, particularly those in high COL areas, to pay for the elite schools. I’m still not seeing how it’s a problem.

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

This. Is. Not. New.

Middle class kids have never been able to afford HYP. I had a community college prof who graduated HS in the 1990s and applied to Harvard on a lark. He got in but didn’t go. He was the only person I knew in my community who had even applied. No one from my high school conference of 8-9 high schools has sent any kid to an Ivy in the past 20 years. Maybe ever, but I can definitively say not in the past 20. Lots of impressive high achiever kids enrolling at Iowa State and U of Iowa.

The only difference between my experience graduating in the mid aughts and kids today is, if these kids did apply (they don’t) and they got in (probably wouldn’t, our high schools have no APs and no prestigious interesting extracurriculars) they would qualify for financial aid. But that’s actually *better* access than previous generations.

This is absolutely a story about entitlement. Rich, but not very rich, people who think they should be allowed to send their kids to top schools but fall short.

It is new. You graduated in the mid aughts, not in 1983 (as I did). So it's not new to you, but it is new to those of us who went to college many decades ago.

I'm the PP whose expensive school cost $8,000 in 1979, and $75,000 today. My parents put SIX kids through private colleges in that era, without any student debt. That would be impossible today for everyone but the top 1%. In the 70s and 80s, middle class kids who qualified to attend HYP, could and did attend. When I was in high school, the mantra went, "if you can get in, there are ways to pay for it."

That is no longer true.

It. is. new.

You’re really delusional. $8k in 1979 is over $28k in today’s dollars. You come from serious privilege and apparently don’t realize it.

If $8K is over $28K in today's dollars, why does the same school cost $75K today?

How is that justifiable?

The school doesn’t. Make your kids share a 2BR with 3 other students as my parents did. While attending state flagship and working full time to pay for it.

No upper middle class kid is actually sacrificing to make it work. If they did those things, along with your $28k contribution, they could afford HYP.

[Anonymous]

I went to an expensive private college and in my case it didn't translate into making billions on Wall Street. I don't make any more money than the guy next door who went to Tech -- so I have had a very hard time believing that it would be worth it to have only driving vacations, live in a smaller house, etc. so that I could give my kids the same education. Yes, I probably read more literature and met more interesting people while in college -- but the idea that one basically needs to save thirty percent of one's income for college doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather have good memories of family vacations and be able to afford the theater tickets, etc.
And the idea that going to Williams or Dartmouth necessarily buys you admission to the 'ruling class' is kind of BS if you ask me. Most of the people from those schools who end up in the ruling class are of the 'born on third base and sliding into home' kind of scenarios. The rest of us ended up UMC. Nothing to scoff at but not exa ctly rulers of the universe.

Yes you're right, but it's difficult to enter the "meritocratic elite" so called without the credential. It doesn't guarantee entrance, but is a necessary prerequisite.

And right who wants to scrimp and save huge portions of their income and live well below their means for decades just to try to have their kids climb up the greasy poll?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's a problem because it makes certain kinds of education inaccessible in ways that it was not in previous generations. And it means that the schools themselves have student bodies made up of students from very wealthy families and from families who qualify for need-based aid, which leaves out a sizable portion of the U.S. demographics.

It also means that super high achievers whose families cannot pay won't have the opportunity to participate in the amazing things happening at these schools.

+1000

Bernie's free college for everyone would benefit the UMC on a relative basis perhaps the most.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Or maybe you’re not paying attention. Bernie’s free college is for PUBLIC schools. Last I checked the schools being mentioned in this thread are not public so...

[Anonymous]

Yale’s cost of attendance calculation includes $9400 for room and $7200 for board. That’s because spoiled rich kids are moving into luxury housing with one kid per bedroom and not shopping and cooking for themselves. The concept of a “poor student” is dead and as a result cost of attendance just keeps going up.