Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

I guess middle class kids end up at state school.

Poverty line is $35k per year. Median American income is $69k. $200 k annual warning is top 10% nationally.

$220K in DC area is considered MC. It depends on where you live.

Choosing to live in an expensive zip code doesn’t change what socioeconomic class you’re in.

Once again, people don't necessarily "choose" to live in a hcol; they go where the jobs are. Notice how during the pandemic when people could wfh, a lot of people moved out of higher col areas. But, now many are returning because companies are requiring RTO.

220k will get you a 900k house in Silver Spring, IB for perfectly good schools, close enough to the metro to commute that way but also not an insane driving commute, meals out a few times a week, a few nice vacations a year, two cars, and once you've saved up for that first down payment and gotten through the childcare years, you'll be able to max out your retirement and put a ton away towards college (unless you choose to have more than 2 kids, but that is on you friend).

The issue is that those of you in this income bracket don't want to live in a 1950s split level in Silver Spring because you think it's beneath you. You think you are middle class because you are living in a house built for a middle class person in 1955. But this is what happens in high COL areas. It doesn't magically make you middle class. You are living in a house worth close to a million dollars. Middle class peopel can't afford that.

OK, but even in Silver Spring, median income is much higher than somewhere like WV. Like I said, it depends on where you live.

Your argument is that the high cost of living magically makes someone making over 200k middle class, but if that income provides you with plenty of very nice options in the region without an obscenely long commute, then no, it doesn't. You're UMC. But none of this matters because (1) your kid isn't getting into Harvard anyway, and (2) if they do, you could absolutely afford to pay the sticker price, it would just take some sacrifice on your part. Whereas an actual middle class family, making under 150k/yr, simply could not afford it no matter how much they sacrifice because they can't afford any kind of home PLUS 70k/yr in tuition. Thus they get money and you don't. Get over it, and maybe focus your attention on making public colleges and universities very high quality and affordable to anyone. Harvard gets to decide how they handle their endowment themselves. They disagree with you.

? my kid is going to a state university, but you are side stepping the point because you can't argue with the point: it's ridiculous that these colleges expect a family that is making $280K to pay the same amount as a family making $800K.

Harvard gets federal money for research. Why on earth should they get all that money if their endowment is so large that they could let in every freshmen come in for free for 10 years or more. Those schools are greedy, and the rich are keeping it that way for a reason. It makes such schools unreachable for the majority simply due to finances.

Spot on.

To add to this, they are making everything a racial issue. So they are prioritizing black and Hispanic students and giving full rides to many (most?) of them. It's all part of a political compromise where rich people for whom $80k a year is nothing retain priority access for their progeny to the schools that feed into the highest layer of the economy. They don't want smart upper middle class kids competing for these seats with their kids.

They are deflecting from the outrageous cost of a private education by pounding the table on DEI and FGLI. Btw, DEI also lets them put a lid on the middle class Asians who have been outcompeting their kids.

Financial aid has nothing to do with race. Bolded is a total myth.

Are you really contending that if you looked at the racial composition of the 50-60% fo the Ivy student body that receives need based aid averaging $50-55k, you would not see a distinct skew towards URM students? How can that not be the case when we see the income statistics nationally of households sorted by race? Black and Hispanic families make far less than whites and Asians earn more than anyone.

The argument is not that they bend the rules in favor of URMs, it's that URMs are more likely to qualify for aid under the rules. Because URMs are less affluent, which is the main reason they are URMs!

DP.. if the majority of URM students are from wealthy families, then it doesn't matter what national statistics look like.

So you are arguing that URMs are *under-represented* among financial aid recipients? I'm sorry, I went to a school like this. Certainly some URM kids were probably not getting much aid but most I knew would have been.

? That wasn't the point. A PP somewhere stated that the majority black students at elite schools are from wealthier families. So, it doesn't matter that national statistics show that there is a higher % of low income black families.

Are there stats that breakdown the demographics of financial aid recipients at these colleges?

I'm sure there are URM who get need based aid, but there are also asian and white students who get aid, too. I don't know what that breakdown looks like. I was simply stating that if it's true that the majority of black students at Harvard, let's say, are from wealthier families, then need based aid is not really race related, as a PP claimed.

Schools would never share this data but I would be floored if there wasn't a meaningful URM tilt in the group of students receiving substantial financial aid. Notwithstanding the article that was posted. And frankly there should be a URM tilt--because I thought the whole point of DEI was to provide opportunities to disadvantaged kids

But need based isn't based on race, and the % of URM at elite colleges is small. Like I said, you'd have to know the income demographics of the students to know what the aid breakdown looks like.

Huh? These schools are 20 pct or more black and Hispanic. My point was, if they broke down the half of the class that was getting need based aid, it would quite obviously skew URM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class kids end up at community college, trade school or state school. Maybe Harvard is full of 2/3 poor and 1/3 rich, but most of the SLAC are full of rich kids. [b]

Why more rich kids at SLAC than Harvard?

The average person in Walmart has never heard of Williams or Amherst. You can bet they’ve heard of Harvard.

Employers have. Way more important than "the average person at Walmart."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class kids end up at community college, trade school or state school. Maybe Harvard is full of 2/3 poor and 1/3 rich, but most of the SLAC are full of rich kids. [b]

Why more rich kids at SLAC than Harvard?

The average person in Walmart has never heard of Williams or Amherst. You can bet they’ve heard of Harvard.

Employers have. Way more important than "the average person at Walmart."

Way to totally miss the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class kids end up at community college, trade school or state school. Maybe Harvard is full of 2/3 poor and 1/3 rich, but most of the SLAC are full of rich kids. [b]

Why more rich kids at SLAC than Harvard?

The average person in Walmart has never heard of Williams or Amherst. You can bet they’ve heard of Harvard.

Employers have. Way more important than "the average person at Walmart."

Way to totally miss the point.

Everyone knows. Joe Sixpack has never heard of Amherst. Next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. OP, they are for rich people, with a smattering of merit-based poor and middle-class famliies so the rich can feel like they also made it on merit.

Yet 2/3 of students are receiving need based aid. So “primarily” doesn’t seem to work. And as I mentioned international students (typically full pay) are 10 pct. Doesn’t leave a lot of full pay domestic students. And half of them may not qualify for aid but parents are struggling to pay for it, borrowing against 401ks etc

Idiots in bolded.

Lol, you think it's a bad idea to wipe out your retirement assets to buy your daughter a $320k Bachelors degree in Anthropology from Bryn Mawr?

What if the 320k anthro degree from Bryn Mawr is a 320k artificial intelligence degree from Carnegie Melon or a 320k quantitative economics degree from MIT? It's not just majors that you consider to be lightweight at SLACs that have become unaffordable

I would never borrow against a 401K, take out a HELOC, co-sign for a private student loan or take out Parent Plus loans. Not even for a CS degree from CMU.

That seems a bit short-sighted on your part. A degree in CS from CMU is a worthwhile investment in your child's future, based on the job opportunities that would be available to him/her.

[Anonymous]

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.

Has anyone pointed out to this dummy that the ticket price of college is not the actual price, at any institution? Despite what some people want, you can’t actually just buy a Harvard education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class kids end up at community college, trade school or state school. Maybe Harvard is full of 2/3 poor and 1/3 rich, but most of the SLAC are full of rich kids. [b]

Why more rich kids at SLAC than Harvard?

The average person in Walmart has never heard of Williams or Amherst. You can bet they’ve heard of Harvard.

Employers have. Way more important than "the average person at Walmart."

“Why more rich kids at SLAC than Harvard?” was the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. OP, they are for rich people, with a smattering of merit-based poor and middle-class famliies so the rich can feel like they also made it on merit.

Yet 2/3 of students are receiving need based aid. So “primarily” doesn’t seem to work. And as I mentioned international students (typically full pay) are 10 pct. Doesn’t leave a lot of full pay domestic students. And half of them may not qualify for aid but parents are struggling to pay for it, borrowing against 401ks etc

Idiots in bolded.

Lol, you think it's a bad idea to wipe out your retirement assets to buy your daughter a $320k Bachelors degree in Anthropology from Bryn Mawr?

What if the 320k anthro degree from Bryn Mawr is a 320k artificial intelligence degree from Carnegie Melon or a 320k quantitative economics degree from MIT? It's not just majors that you consider to be lightweight at SLACs that have become unaffordable

I would never borrow against a 401K, take out a HELOC, co-sign for a private student loan or take out Parent Plus loans. Not even for a CS degree from CMU.

That seems a bit short-sighted on your part. A degree in CS from CMU is a worthwhile investment in your child's future, based on the job opportunities that would be available to him/her.

But, so are a lot of degrees from a lot of schools.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't say "mainly" but would say definitely moreso than in the past.

[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: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.

You obviously have great health insurance. We could have never afforded that and colleges do not all consider medical expense as a deduction from income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. OP, they are for rich people, with a smattering of merit-based poor and middle-class famliies so the rich can feel like they also made it on merit.

Yet 2/3 of students are receiving need based aid. So “primarily” doesn’t seem to work. And as I mentioned international students (typically full pay) are 10 pct. Doesn’t leave a lot of full pay domestic students. And half of them may not qualify for aid but parents are struggling to pay for it, borrowing against 401ks etc

Idiots in bolded.

Lol, you think it's a bad idea to wipe out your retirement assets to buy your daughter a $320k Bachelors degree in Anthropology from Bryn Mawr?

What if the 320k anthro degree from Bryn Mawr is a 320k artificial intelligence degree from Carnegie Melon or a 320k quantitative economics degree from MIT? It's not just majors that you consider to be lightweight at SLACs that have become unaffordable

I would never borrow against a 401K, take out a HELOC, co-sign for a private student loan or take out Parent Plus loans. Not even for a CS degree from CMU.

That seems a bit short-sighted on your part. A degree in CS from CMU is a worthwhile investment in your child's future, based on the job opportunities that would be available to him/her.

Any kid who could get accepted to CMU CS will have a very similar career trajectory with a CS degree from anywhere, especially if they get a degree from the next 1-2 tiers lower of STEM schools. But even with a CS degree from any college, they can be in a similar spot within 5 years (if they want).
So, no taking out $50K in loans for 4 years for $200 K is NOT worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I randomly picked Princeton and did the net price calculator. Said my AGI is 200k, $100k in a kids 529, $100k of home equity, $100k in savings and a MD resident.

Princeton spit out I would be eligible for $48k in annual grants, so all in net price of $35k.

I am sure people will pick apart the inputs…but I don’t get these schools provide nothing.

Princeton is like no other for us. We have EFC of about 40k there and more like 80k everywhere else. We’re much lower income but higher assets.

It gets people to apply, who are then rejected anyway.

[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: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.

You obviously have great health insurance. We could have never afforded that and colleges do not all consider medical expense as a deduction from income.

Yes, we have always had jobs with decent health insurance. Most people making $200K+ do have good/decent health insurance. Obviously not every single person would be able to do this, but many could if they desire to save for Harvard/Harvard equivalent. If that's not important then you save what you can---most making $200K can find a way to save for In state costs ($~30K currently).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And I’m sure Harvard’s $50+ BILLION endowment appreciates all the sacrifice. We shouldn’t have a system that requires such deprivation when colleges are sitting on tax protected billions. We are the suckers. Chileans took to the streets when universities were too expensive. We shame each other for taking a vacation.

+1 And most of our vacations aren't even that nice. I've never taken our kids to a beach resort or Disneyworld. Most of our vacations are to see family. We drive our cars for like 15 years. We chose to live in a nice neighborhood for the safety and schools, but that's about it. We live in a hcol area because of our jobs, but that's about it.

We don't wear expensive clothes; we shop at Old Navy and Kohls. I have no jewelry except my engagement ring.

We save a lot more for retirement because we don't have family money, and we don't want to burden our children with our retirement. And actually, we help out our families financially.

Colleges that take federal money for research should have their costs regulated.

It's ridiculous for them to expect families making $280K to pay the same as a family making $800K.

I'm the same as you, but I'm not so sure it is ridiculous for them to expect that families making $280k should pay the same as a family making $800k. I think of these $80k per year colleges as a luxury car. There are people that pay $80k for a car. I suppose I could do that-- you could do that-- but I don't because the used Toyota Rav4 is fine. Likewise, I could pay $80k per year for my kids to go to a college, but why would I when they can get just as good an education at a public school.

Why do these schools decide to not help upper-middle class attend? Maybe those endowments are restricted and can only be used to help families that are truly middle class? OR maybe the odd mix of obscenely wealthy and middle class/ poor kids and nothing in between is working for them. Gives the student body une certaine frissione that having a bunch of upper-middle class people would cause to go flat.

The fact is kids in upper-middle class families will largely do very well at whatever school they attend. They don't need the access that less affluent kids require. For a school to brag about rags-to-riches stories the kids actually needs to be in rags, and $280k per year families ain't going to bring it.

Anyway, if your argument is that private elite schools should give a better deal to families making $280k than for $800k, where does that kind of thinking end? Tesla has luxury cars and the company has taken federal money for research-- should society require Tesla to charge families making $800k more for their luxury car than families making $280k? IF not, why would we require Harvard to do it? To my mind Harvard is a luxury just like a luxury car.

[Anonymous]

ooo