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

[Anonymous]

Room and board is a money maker for collages. Tiny old dorm rooms. Cheap carby food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not PP, but a substantial number of my HS friends, in the mixed-SES town I grew up, in attended top-20 schools: Harvard, Yale, Brown, Williams, Amherst, Dartmouth - those are the names I recall off the top of my head.

In our generation (I'm 58yo), the cost of attendance could be covered from savings, current income, the student's summer earnings, work study, and some modest loans. E.g. the expensive private SLAC I attended cost about $8,000 when I started in 1979, and I contributed about 25% of that from my summer and school-year work. Proportionally, a student today would have to contribute almost $25,000 to make the same dent in the same school's costs.

Adjusted for inflation, $8,000.00 in 1979 is equal to $29,687.80 in 2019. But that school now costs almost $75,000/year.

+1

I'm 59 and this describes the shift well.

It's really about who gets access to the elite institutions and therefore into the ruling class.

I don’t think an elite private cost $8000 in 1979. I went to school that year and it was more. Not able to subsidize that with a summer job unless it was engineering/ computers.
Also we are paying $43k for a State school. Education has always been geared towards the wealthy. Even if it’s not proportional right now. There are so many more wealthy people full pay now at elite schools.

It did.

Boston College tuition that year was $3,645.

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/publications/factbook/pdf/1979-80_fact_book.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The making $3k over the summer toward $8k tuition is what gets me because wage stagnation is the other piece here. Yes, tuition has gone up like crazy - my tuition at a SLAC in the mid-2000s was $40k and my college charges close to $70k 15 years later, which is wild. But i also worked during the summers and was only able to earn a little over $3k. In my small town there just weren't jobs available for unskilled workers like a college freshman that paid more. My mom took a semester off from college in the 70s to earn enough to pay for an entire year when her mom remarried and she lost financial aid; no way could a 20 year old student earn enough in 7 months to do that now.

It sounds like you're conflating COA with tuition? I don't think any SLAC charges $70k, but plenty were 40k in tuition in the mid 2000s.

I am referring to COA. Tuition, room, and board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The statistics show the premise of the OP is false.

Very false.

I’ll not join in on the lifestyle shaming that is about to follow, but nor will I argue against it.

Post you're statistics that prove that OP's premise is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ spend 75K comfortably out of pocket or savings while affording a single family home in a decent neighborhood with good schools (forget private). Especially for multiple children”

Who on earth thinks that they are entitled to these things? Why should affording in college be comfortable? It’s a big purchase, something you work towards, save towards, and pay off for years afterward. Seems like you think that you’re entitled to it without any lifestyle changes at all.

Maybe you can only afford it if you don’t have a single family home in a decent neighborhood with good schools. Maybe you can only afford it if you live in a townhouse, send your kids to charter schools and give some other stuff up.

I hardly see that as an American tragedy.

OP is just pointing out that those things were attainable in prior generations. Are you disagreeing with that, or are you just lecturing OP that she needs to suck it up because no one cares that these changes have occurred?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know it depends on how you define UMC. Let's say donut hole families which are so common in high COL areas. Above 100k income approx, but not enough to shell out 300K cash for a bachelor's degree. Not eligible for need based aid at IVY's and other elite privates. Guess these schools don't care that there is a segment of the population which can no longer afford their services. It's too small a demographic perhaps? The 80th to 90th income percentiles, again approx. Not sure what would be the threshold HHI in a high COL area to be able to spend 75K comfortably out of pocket or savings while affording a single family home in a decent neighborhood with good schools (forget private). Especially for multiple children. In other words a basic middle class life as it used to be defined.

I'm older and I would say that this started being an issue around 2000. The younger UMC demographic seems to be a key segment of Bernie's support. Is it any wonder? Not that any bachelor's degree is worth 300K.

One aspect of the new American inequality: the proletarianization of the everyone under the plutocracy.

Well if they are supporting Bernie based on the premise of this thread — the high cost of PRIVATE colleges, when his plan only relates to public colleges — then they are too dumb for words.

[Anonymous]

https://college-education.procon.org/median-incomes-v-average-college-tuition-rates/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it depends on how you define UMC. Let's say donut hole families which are so common in high COL areas. Above 100k income approx, but not enough to shell out 300K cash for a bachelor's degree. Not eligible for need based aid at IVY's and other elite privates. Guess these schools don't care that there is a segment of the population which can no longer afford their services. It's too small a demographic perhaps? The 80th to 90th income percentiles, again approx. Not sure what would be the threshold HHI in a high COL area to be able to spend 75K comfortably out of pocket or savings while affording a single family home in a decent neighborhood with good schools (forget private). Especially for multiple children. In other words a basic middle class life as it used to be defined.

I'm older and I would say that this started being an issue around 2000. The younger UMC demographic seems to be a key segment of Bernie's support. Is it any wonder? Not that any bachelor's degree is worth 300K.

One aspect of the new American inequality: the proletarianization of the everyone under the plutocracy.

Well if they are supporting Bernie based on the premise of this thread — the high cost of PRIVATE colleges, when his plan only relates to public colleges — then they are too dumb for words.

If UVA is free, why would anyone pay $75,000 more per year to go to an Ivy? The Ivys would have to adjust their cost to take into account the huge price differential. A $75,000 a year difference is very different than a $35,000 difference, especially over a four year period. I'm not sure you should be calling people too dumb for words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it depends on how you define UMC. Let's say donut hole families which are so common in high COL areas. Above 100k income approx, but not enough to shell out 300K cash for a bachelor's degree. Not eligible for need based aid at IVY's and other elite privates. Guess these schools don't care that there is a segment of the population which can no longer afford their services. It's too small a demographic perhaps? The 80th to 90th income percentiles, again approx. Not sure what would be the threshold HHI in a high COL area to be able to spend 75K comfortably out of pocket or savings while affording a single family home in a decent neighborhood with good schools (forget private). Especially for multiple children. In other words a basic middle class life as it used to be defined.

I'm older and I would say that this started being an issue around 2000. The younger UMC demographic seems to be a key segment of Bernie's support. Is it any wonder? Not that any bachelor's degree is worth 300K.

One aspect of the new American inequality: the proletarianization of the everyone under the plutocracy.

Well if they are supporting Bernie based on the premise of this thread — the high cost of PRIVATE colleges, when his plan only relates to public colleges — then they are too dumb for words.

If UVA is free, why would anyone pay $75,000 more per year to go to an Ivy? The Ivys would have to adjust their cost to take into account the huge price differential. A $75,000 a year difference is very different than a $35,000 difference, especially over a four year period. I'm not sure you should be calling people too dumb for words.

State schools in NY like Binghamton and Albany charge zero tuition for folks making 100k and plenty still go Ivy’s

[Anonymous]

Up to 125k now zero tuition in NY just move there

[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

NPC (the simplified version that asks only about half a dozen questions) significantly underestimates your expected contribution since it doesn't look at many forms of assets. When you fill out FAFSA you will get a shock when you see what it expects you to contribute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know it depends on how you define UMC. Let's say donut hole families which are so common in high COL areas. Above 100k income approx, but not enough to shell out 300K cash for a bachelor's degree. Not eligible for need based aid at IVY's and other elite privates. Guess these schools don't care that there is a segment of the population which can no longer afford their services. It's too small a demographic perhaps? The 80th to 90th income percentiles, again approx. Not sure what would be the threshold HHI in a high COL area to be able to spend 75K comfortably out of pocket or savings while affording a single family home in a decent neighborhood with good schools (forget private). Especially for multiple children. In other words a basic middle class life as it used to be defined.

I'm older and I would say that this started being an issue around 2000. The younger UMC demographic seems to be a key segment of Bernie's support. Is it any wonder? Not that any bachelor's degree is worth 300K.

One aspect of the new American inequality: the proletarianization of the everyone under the plutocracy.

Well if they are supporting Bernie based on the premise of this thread — the high cost of PRIVATE colleges, when his plan only relates to public colleges — then they are too dumb for words.

If UVA is free, why would anyone pay $75,000 more per year to go to an Ivy? The Ivys would have to adjust their cost to take into account the huge price differential. A $75,000 a year difference is very different than a $35,000 difference, especially over a four year period. I'm not sure you should be calling people too dumb for words.

If public k-12s are free, why would anyone pay ~500,000 over the course of 13 years for Sidwell or GDS? Oh, wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The making $3k over the summer toward $8k tuition is what gets me because wage stagnation is the other piece here. Yes, tuition has gone up like crazy - my tuition at a SLAC in the mid-2000s was $40k and my college charges close to $70k 15 years later, which is wild. But i also worked during the summers and was only able to earn a little over $3k. In my small town there just weren't jobs available for unskilled workers like a college freshman that paid more. My mom took a semester off from college in the 70s to earn enough to pay for an entire year when her mom remarried and she lost financial aid; no way could a 20 year old student earn enough in 7 months to do that now.

You realize that a $40,000 will grow to $70,000 in 15 years at an annual interest rate of 3.8% which is very reasonable rate for a college tuition to increase. The facilities and educational opportunities generally at any college now are much better than they were 15 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Look at the liberal elites. They have gotten their prize and their high position on the economic ladder. They have now shut the door and pulled up the ladder to the opportunities that got them to where they are today for the upper middle class. By allowing UMC access to education at prestigious private schools they could potentially be knocked a few runs lower on the ladder. The liberal elite are all for admitting poor minority students because they won't pose a threat to them once they graduate.

I see this. But there are many UMCs that can send their kids there make it happen and still threaten them. They know that. And again high UMC not low UMC, huge lifestyle difference. At the end of the day it’s not about equality. It’s all an illusion. The rules change, percentages stay the same. 2008 graduate who is now high UMC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statistics show the premise of the OP is false.

Very false.

I’ll not join in on the lifestyle shaming that is about to follow, but nor will I argue against it.

Post you're statistics that prove that OP's premise is false.

Well many were posted already, here is one I posted:

{Yale} school says that families with household incomes of less than $65,000 are not expected to contribute any funds to pay for their students education and families that make between $65,000 and $200,000 contribute between just 1% and 20% of their annual income.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/it-costs-75925-to-...uch-students-actually-pay.html

Here's another:

100 percent of tuition is covered by Princeton’s average aid package for students in the Class of 2022 with family incomes up to $160,000.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/11/19/affordable-all-financial-aid-princeton

Even Dartmouth gives 100% up to 100K:

Free tuition for students coming from families making $100,000 or less and possessing typical assets.

https://financialaid.dartmouth.edu/

And it's not just ivies:

Under Stanford’s program, parents with annual incomes below $125,000 and assets typical of that income level pay no tuition.

https://news.stanford.edu/2018/12/04/stanford-expands-financial-aid-middle-income-families-trustees-set-2019-20-tuition/

Run the NPCs for Williams and Amherst with UMC numbers. You'll find it very affordable. All elites, all generous to UMC, unless you don't consider 100K-200K UMC and you think 20% is too much at the top end of that bracket, in which case I cannot help you with the aforementioned lifestyle shaming which you will receive here from others.

Enough for you?