making $250-$400K in NW DC and paying for college out of Wilson High school or similar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem:

1) If you are medium HHI and living in a less expensive area, you aren't expected to make any sacrifices to send your kid to a private.

2) If you are high HHI and living in a high cost area, you are expected to make tangible sacrifices to send your kid to private. And you are expected to subsidize #2.

Edit: subsidize #1.

How so?

This:

"People do this at YOUR income level by saving 2/3 up front over the course of 18 years and cash flowing the rest, using loans as a last resort."

Why should the above quote only apply to the high HHI folks? Why is it that only the "YOUR income level" folks need to be doing this?

[Anonymous]

Because the basic overhead of life (food, shelter, utilities, transportation, medical care) necessarily consumes a higher percentage of the HHI of lower-income families. Even as they spend less to meet these needs than UMC do.

Basically, at a certain level of affluence, typically a higher percentage of expenditures are discretionary. The same logic is used to justify progressive taxation. And, in the college tuition case, if you have unusually high non-discretionary spending, that may be taken into account.

[Anonymous]

I am a bit baffled as to how this is an actual question. The only answer is saving in advance or taking loans out to cover what cannot done with cash flow. We all know that. Nothing has changed, except that tuition is higher than it was when we were in school.

If your question is specific to the DC area, then yes a lot of people do deliberate move to VA for the superior public schools which, though still very expensive, are a hell of a lot cheaper than private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in NW DC and make $250K-400K as do all of our friends and neighbors. We're all 2 income families in well-paying but not elite-paying DC area jobs (no law partners or senior lobbyists--we're mostly two fed households). We own expensive, old, small houses and pay way too much for childcare, etc. Otherwise we live pretty simple day-to-day lives: public school, Old Navy, etc You know the story. Some of our neighborhood friends' kids are starting to graduate from Wilson and I'm noticing a trend. They get into very good colleges (top 50) but these schools are full freight. Most end up going to second or third tier schools (public or private) that offer aid.

Is this pretty much how it goes for people like us? (i.e. high income earners regardless of our daily housing/etc expenses). I can think of about a dozen NW DC kids who got into schools like Smith or Swarthmore or Cornell and half ended up attending (full pay) and half ended up going elsewhere (public or private) because the second or third school offered significant money.
Do the "top" schools offer merit aid to students like ours? Or is our only way to get a kid to Smith to be able to pay $65K/year?

(disclaimer--i have no idea how my elementary aged kids will fair in the admissions game or if top-50 schools will even be on their radar).

I don't entirely understand what you're spending your money on. If you're concerned about college I have to assume your childcare costs no longer exist. I also have to assume you didn't purchase your home in the last five years. We did and still have plenty of money. We earn roughly 380k a year and can save outside of retirement a good 100k a year. We also spend money on clothing, fancy vacations and will have daycare costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because the basic overhead of life (food, shelter, utilities, transportation, medical care) necessarily consumes a higher percentage of the HHI of lower-income families. Even as they spend less to meet these needs than UMC do.

Basically, at a certain level of affluence, typically a higher percentage of expenditures are discretionary. The same logic is used to justify progressive taxation. And, in the college tuition case, if you have unusually high non-discretionary spending, that may be taken into account.

I hear you. Perhaps it comes down to what people view as "discretionary". Private school when the publics are bad? Really high mortgage payments? Dance lessons? Travel sports? There are many un-sexy ways for high HHI folks to burn through their cash....and then find themselves in the donut hole. I don't think they deserve the I-told-you-so.

Full disclosure: this isn't my situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a weird question, OP, because it sounds like you are trying to imply that your income level is not that high or at least not high enough to be putting any money away for this purpose, such that you deserve some kind of financial break. To which I have no choice but to seriously side eye. If you've been saving all along, as you say you have been, then you already know the answer: a combination of savings, cash flow, and loans (if the student is unlucky). So why ask the question then?

Anyway assuming this is a genuine q, the general rule of thumb is to save 2/3 up front and cash flow the rest.

12:37 here.

I don't read OP's question as having that implication at all. I read it as, how do people who are rich but not 1%'ers afford to pay tuition that is currently $65K/year/kid and rising faster than inflation? Or do they not pay it, and choose a cheaper option?

We have saved but cannot pay full freight at top-tier schools, nor do we qualify for FA.

We have 2/3rds saved (as of now; tuition increases outpace inflation) but there is no way we could cash flow the rest. Moreover, we are older parents (DH is 64) and one of us will likely need to retire while our second is still in college.

Families like us are in the "donut hole." We can neither pay full sticker price, nor qualify for FA. Children of families like ours are therefore increasingly attending state schools (hence the rise in UMD's competitiveness), or going to second and third tier schools with big merit scholarships.

+1. Same boat as OP- 3 kids. All public in DC. We had our own loans to pay off first, and while we've saved a lot, we do not have enough for 3 kids full freight. We have about 40K a year for each, so they go to state schools, and one receives merit $ as well. We have two in at once and no break for 9 years. I resent when people think we should have saved enough for full freight because of our HHI. Our HHI has not increased in years; it's actually decreased, and we have done the best we can. I have no issue with state schools, second or third tiers either. You send them where you can afford to send them. They'll survive.

This is ridiculous. You obviously feel wronged being asked to pay full freight at an income level that is several times higher than the national median. You do know that a private college education is a luxury not a human right, yes? So save in advance or don't, it doesn't change the basic rules of the game and matters to me personally not one iota. The OP asked a question and I answered. People do this at YOUR income level by saving 2/3 up front over the course of 18 years and cash flowing the rest, using loans as a last resort.

No one has expressed any feeling remotely like this.

Oh really? Then why ask the question if you know what the answer is? Save. Or move to VA it MD for the in state tuition. That's it. What else is there? It's well known that top tier schools are scaling back on merit scholarships if they ever gave in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in NW DC and make $250K-400K as do all of our friends and neighbors. We're all 2 income families in well-paying but not elite-paying DC area jobs (no law partners or senior lobbyists--we're mostly two fed households). We own expensive, old, small houses and pay way too much for childcare, etc. Otherwise we live pretty simple day-to-day lives: public school, Old Navy, etc You know the story. Some of our neighborhood friends' kids are starting to graduate from Wilson and I'm noticing a trend. They get into very good colleges (top 50) but these schools are full freight. Most end up going to second or third tier schools (public or private) that offer aid.

Is this pretty much how it goes for people like us? (i.e. high income earners regardless of our daily housing/etc expenses). I can think of about a dozen NW DC kids who got into schools like Smith or Swarthmore or Cornell and half ended up attending (full pay) and half ended up going elsewhere (public or private) because the second or third school offered significant money.
Do the "top" schools offer merit aid to students like ours? Or is our only way to get a kid to Smith to be able to pay $65K/year?

(disclaimer--i have no idea how my elementary aged kids will fair in the admissions game or if top-50 schools will even be on their radar).

I don't entirely understand what you're spending your money on. If you're concerned about college I have to assume your childcare costs no longer exist. I also have to assume you didn't purchase your home in the last five years. We did and still have plenty of money. We earn roughly 380k a year and can save outside of retirement a good 100k a year. We also spend money on clothing, fancy vacations and will have daycare costs.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem:

1) If you are medium HHI and living in a less expensive area, you aren't expected to make any sacrifices to send your kid to a private.

2) If you are high HHI and living in a high cost area, you are expected to make tangible sacrifices to send your kid to private. And you are expected to subsidize #2.

Edit: subsidize #1.

How so?

This:

"People do this at YOUR income level by saving 2/3 up front over the course of 18 years and cash flowing the rest, using loans as a last resort."

Why should the above quote only apply to the high HHI folks? Why is it that only the "YOUR income level" folks need to be doing this?

? Because lower income folks will qualify for financial aid? This is a weird thread.

Financial advisors recomend saving 4 figures a month per kid for college for a reason, you know. How did this escape your attention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: It's well known that top tier schools are scaling back on merit scholarships if they ever gave in the first place.

They haven't for a while.
Even the schools 1-2 tiers down are scaling down. Case in point - WPI had an NMF scholarship that has been axed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem:

1) If you are medium HHI and living in a less expensive area, you aren't expected to make any sacrifices to send your kid to a private.

2) If you are high HHI and living in a high cost area, you are expected to make tangible sacrifices to send your kid to private. And you are expected to subsidize #2.

Edit: subsidize #1.

How so?

This:

"People do this at YOUR income level by saving 2/3 up front over the course of 18 years and cash flowing the rest, using loans as a last resort."

Why should the above quote only apply to the high HHI folks? Why is it that only the "YOUR income level" folks need to be doing this?

? Because lower income folks will qualify for financial aid? This is a weird thread.

Financial advisors recomend saving 4 figures a month per kid for college for a reason, you know. How did this escape your attention?

There are plenty of ways in which both #1 and #2 could live normal lives for their location and have little left over each month. There is an expectation here that only #2 should be making sacrifices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It's well known that top tier schools are scaling back on merit scholarships if they ever gave in the first place.

They haven't for a while.
Even the schools 1-2 tiers down are scaling down. Case in point - WPI had an NMF scholarship that has been axed.

Lots of institutions hurt by the recession and state budget cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem:

1) If you are medium HHI and living in a less expensive area, you aren't expected to make any sacrifices to send your kid to a private.

2) If you are high HHI and living in a high cost area, you are expected to make tangible sacrifices to send your kid to private. And you are expected to subsidize #2.

Edit: subsidize #1.

How so?

This:

"People do this at YOUR income level by saving 2/3 up front over the course of 18 years and cash flowing the rest, using loans as a last resort."

Why should the above quote only apply to the high HHI folks? Why is it that only the "YOUR income level" folks need to be doing this?

? Because lower income folks will qualify for financial aid? This is a weird thread.

Financial advisors recomend saving 4 figures a month per kid for college for a reason, you know. How did this escape your attention?

There are plenty of ways in which both #1 and #2 could live normal lives for their location and have little left over each month. There is an expectation here that only #2 should be making sacrifices.

This is insane. Yes of course high HHI folks should be expected to pay full freight! Typically those who get full or close to financial aid have families that make less than 120k. OP makes at least double if not triple or more. She should have been saving, end of story. She knew this expense was coming up. Sounds like she wants her dd to go to an expensive school (Smith) so yes, to make it doable she should be saving around 1k a month for that one child. How else can you make it work without loans?

[Anonymous]

We pay full freight for 2 ($165K), but saved aggressively and paid off our mortgage before they left for college. We've always been big savers though.

[Anonymous]

Ooops, $125K, not 165!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the problem:

1) If you are medium HHI and living in a less expensive area, you aren't expected to make any sacrifices to send your kid to a private.

2) If you are high HHI and living in a high cost area, you are expected to make tangible sacrifices to send your kid to private. And you are expected to subsidize #2.

Edit: subsidize #1.

How so?

This:

"People do this at YOUR income level by saving 2/3 up front over the course of 18 years and cash flowing the rest, using loans as a last resort."

Why should the above quote only apply to the high HHI folks? Why is it that only the "YOUR income level" folks need to be doing this?

? Because lower income folks will qualify for financial aid? This is a weird thread.

Financial advisors recomend saving 4 figures a month per kid for college for a reason, you know. How did this escape your attention?

There are plenty of ways in which both #1 and #2 could live normal lives for their location and have little left over each month. There is an expectation here that only #2 should be making sacrifices.

This is insane. Yes of course high HHI folks should be expected to pay full freight! Typically those who get full or close to financial aid have families that make less than 120k. OP makes at least double if not triple or more. She should have been saving, end of story. She knew this expense was coming up. Sounds like she wants her dd to go to an expensive school (Smith) so yes, to make it doable she should be saving around 1k a month for that one child. How else can you make it work without loans?

You are assuming that all people who are expected to pay full freight have the ability to save the amounts that are expected. If they live in high cost areas, pay high mortgages, pay for private schools vs publics, etc...they might not. "Should have been saving" makes plenty of sense if they have anything left over.