Is there any correlation between income and merit aid?

[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:“$400k in a high cost area with 3 kids in college (which gives you no discounts) is a big struggle to pay $80-90k/year for each kid”

Cry me a river 🙄

Easy to say when someone else is paying your bills.

Nobody else is paying my bills, what are you babbling about?

If your kid is getting need-based aid, that’s exactly what’s happening. The classmates paying rack rate are subsidizing your kid’s education. They ARE paying your bills.

You sarcastically wrote “cry me a river”, right? That’s what was responded to. Who would say that other than someone dismissing the complaint of those paying full price?

bitter much?

Yeah, of course. Why are you unable to pay your own bills, or else send your kid to community college?

Why am I paying for your kid?

Do you really think poor kids shouldn’t be able to go to college? That’s a fascinating take. You are a villain.

No, of course not.

Do you really think they are too good for community college or public institutions? They can only go T20?

Poor families can’t pay full freight at public universities, either. I know because I grew up poor, got financial aid at a UC, and took the rest out in loans that I paid off myself. There’s no way my parents could have paid even the $12k per year or whatever it was back then. I’m lucky enough to be a comfortable earner now and I would never object to low-income kids being subsidized at whatever school my kids end up attending.

And no, I don’t think that all low-income, high-achieving kids ought to miss out on the chance to go straight to a 4-year school.

That sounds well and good, but tell me where your feelings would land under an alternative fact pattern:

Your three kids have higher tests scores, more rigor in their transcript, greater depth and breadth on their ECs, and the same GPA - but because of their apparent misfortune of attending a highly competitive public HS, their college applications are overlooked for kids with lower test scores, less rigor on their transcript, lesser depth and breadth on their ECs, and the same GPA at a much less competitive public HS where they are the “big fish in small pond”. So the low income kids are often starting out at better institutions than your kids.

Then, you’re looking at paying an average of $90K per year for each of your three kids to go through, let’s say Duke, Hopkins, Macalester. All three would have been viable at T10 schools but for the fact that the HS cohort they were compared against was exceptional. Class of 2027, Class of 2029 and Class of 2031. Over that 8 year period, you’ll be incurring a cost of $1M+.

The low income kid is paying nothing - again, often at better institutions leading to better career prospects, typically.

Are you really cool with the process as it stands now, under that kind of a fact pattern for you?

I can’t quite believe that, after the past 5-10 years, there are still people who think like you.

Do you think your children are inherently worthier than poor kids?

Or inherently smarter?

Do you think they’ve been set up equally for success in life?

Would you trade places with those low-income kids’ families?

Do you honestly believe your kids are disadvantaged by this system?

This is ridiculous. You’re an advocate for extreme wealth redistribution. I’m not. You think it’s just and fair. I don’t. Asking me if I’d trade places with others after I’ve worked my ass off to earn my station in life is absurd.

Regarding who is more deserving, how can you possibly determine that now that test scores have been scrapped and replaced with the subjectivity of “how bad was your school” in the holistic review process?

I cannot believe there are people like you who think the system isn’t broken and that others should have to pay for you - and that they should shut up and do it with a smile.

You missed that you are a selfish pr*ck and they aren’t.

BTW, the system is broken but your “problem” isn’t the real one.

It’s not all about you.

I’m a selfish pr*ck because I don’t believe that every kid in low SES circumstances will miraculously blossom into a world class scholar with the mere add of access to resources.

PLEASE, dear god, please tell us your view of how the system is broken!

Lemme guess? It’s failing to also gift the low SES kid with title to the house currently occupied by the high SES kid? It’s not lowering the grading rubric for the lower SES kid?

[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:“$400k in a high cost area with 3 kids in college (which gives you no discounts) is a big struggle to pay $80-90k/year for each kid”

Cry me a river 🙄

Easy to say when someone else is paying your bills.

Nobody else is paying my bills, what are you babbling about?

If your kid is getting need-based aid, that’s exactly what’s happening. The classmates paying rack rate are subsidizing your kid’s education. They ARE paying your bills.

You sarcastically wrote “cry me a river”, right? That’s what was responded to. Who would say that other than someone dismissing the complaint of those paying full price?

bitter much?

Yeah, of course. Why are you unable to pay your own bills, or else send your kid to community college?

Why am I paying for your kid?

Do you really think poor kids shouldn’t be able to go to college? That’s a fascinating take. You are a villain.

No, of course not.

Do you really think they are too good for community college or public institutions? They can only go T20?

Poor families can’t pay full freight at public universities, either. I know because I grew up poor, got financial aid at a UC, and took the rest out in loans that I paid off myself. There’s no way my parents could have paid even the $12k per year or whatever it was back then. I’m lucky enough to be a comfortable earner now and I would never object to low-income kids being subsidized at whatever school my kids end up attending.

And no, I don’t think that all low-income, high-achieving kids ought to miss out on the chance to go straight to a 4-year school.

That sounds well and good, but tell me where your feelings would land under an alternative fact pattern:

Your three kids have higher tests scores, more rigor in their transcript, greater depth and breadth on their ECs, and the same GPA - but because of their apparent misfortune of attending a highly competitive public HS, their college applications are overlooked for kids with lower test scores, less rigor on their transcript, lesser depth and breadth on their ECs, and the same GPA at a much less competitive public HS where they are the “big fish in small pond”. So the low income kids are often starting out at better institutions than your kids.

Then, you’re looking at paying an average of $90K per year for each of your three kids to go through, let’s say Duke, Hopkins, Macalester. All three would have been viable at T10 schools but for the fact that the HS cohort they were compared against was exceptional. Class of 2027, Class of 2029 and Class of 2031. Over that 8 year period, you’ll be incurring a cost of $1M+.

The low income kid is paying nothing - again, often at better institutions leading to better career prospects, typically.

Are you really cool with the process as it stands now, under that kind of a fact pattern for you?

I can’t quite believe that, after the past 5-10 years, there are still people who think like you.

Do you think your children are inherently worthier than poor kids?

Or inherently smarter?

Do you think they’ve been set up equally for success in life?

Would you trade places with those low-income kids’ families?

Do you honestly believe your kids are disadvantaged by this system?

This is ridiculous. You’re an advocate for extreme wealth redistribution. I’m not. You think it’s just and fair. I don’t. Asking me if I’d trade places with others after I’ve worked my ass off to earn my station in life is absurd.

Regarding who is more deserving, how can you possibly determine that now that test scores have been scrapped and replaced with the subjectivity of “how bad was your school” in the holistic review process?

I cannot believe there are people like you who think the system isn’t broken and that others should have to pay for you - and that they should shut up and do it with a smile.

You missed that you are a selfish pr*ck and they aren’t.

BTW, the system is broken but your “problem” isn’t the real one.

It’s not all about you.

I’m a selfish pr*ck because I don’t believe that every kid in low SES circumstances will miraculously blossom into a world class scholar with the mere add of access to resources.

PLEASE, dear god, please tell us your view of how the system is broken!

Lemme guess? It’s failing to also gift the low SES kid with title to the house currently occupied by the high SES kid? It’s not lowering the grading rubric for the lower SES kid?

PP, if you had any introspection, you would realize you are kind of pathetic.

We are full pay. It's such a relief to be so after grinding through undergrad and grad with no real support. DH and I work hard, but we got damn lucky with some breaks at key times on the career/income ladder. I am grateful that my DCs understand what luck and privilege mean and do not begrudge the first gen students in their cohorts, or even gave them any mind while applying (as in zero-sum gain mindset mind).

I am also appreciative that my parents taught me that even when you do not have much, if anything, there is still something to contribute, even if it is time or gratitude.

[Anonymous]

HHI is over $2 million. DC gets $24,000 merit aid at their college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“$400k in a high cost area with 3 kids in college (which gives you no discounts) is a big struggle to pay $80-90k/year for each kid”

Cry me a river 🙄

Easy to say when someone else is paying your bills.

Nobody else is paying my bills, what are you babbling about?

If your kid is getting need-based aid, that’s exactly what’s happening. The classmates paying rack rate are subsidizing your kid’s education. They ARE paying your bills.

You sarcastically wrote “cry me a river”, right? That’s what was responded to. Who would say that other than someone dismissing the complaint of those paying full price?

bitter much?

Yeah, of course. Why are you unable to pay your own bills, or else send your kid to community college?

Why am I paying for your kid?

Do you really think poor kids shouldn’t be able to go to college? That’s a fascinating take. You are a villain.

No, of course not.

Do you really think they are too good for community college or public institutions? They can only go T20?

Poor families can’t pay full freight at public universities, either. I know because I grew up poor, got financial aid at a UC, and took the rest out in loans that I paid off myself. There’s no way my parents could have paid even the $12k per year or whatever it was back then. I’m lucky enough to be a comfortable earner now and I would never object to low-income kids being subsidized at whatever school my kids end up attending.

And no, I don’t think that all low-income, high-achieving kids ought to miss out on the chance to go straight to a 4-year school.

That sounds well and good, but tell me where your feelings would land under an alternative fact pattern:

Your three kids have higher tests scores, more rigor in their transcript, greater depth and breadth on their ECs, and the same GPA - but because of their apparent misfortune of attending a highly competitive public HS, their college applications are overlooked for kids with lower test scores, less rigor on their transcript, lesser depth and breadth on their ECs, and the same GPA at a much less competitive public HS where they are the “big fish in small pond”. So the low income kids are often starting out at better institutions than your kids.

Then, you’re looking at paying an average of $90K per year for each of your three kids to go through, let’s say Duke, Hopkins, Macalester. All three would have been viable at T10 schools but for the fact that the HS cohort they were compared against was exceptional. Class of 2027, Class of 2029 and Class of 2031. Over that 8 year period, you’ll be incurring a cost of $1M+.

The low income kid is paying nothing - again, often at better institutions leading to better career prospects, typically.

Are you really cool with the process as it stands now, under that kind of a fact pattern for you?

Sure.

First, studies show time and again that "prestige" schools most benefit unconnected kids but generally have less of an impact on the connected. So yeah, if I know ten kids from lower SES households attending these schools, doing well in the work world, and then helping/inspiring their extended families, I think that's great.

Second, if your DCs are this amazing but money is tight, then I think you would be more strategic with their applications. Perhaps look at Davidson and W+L rather than Duke and Hopkins. If you are not getting any merit from Mac, then your kids are probably not as impressive as you believe.

Third, the low income kid is not paying *nothing,* but not in the way that you would like them to be. TBH, there were plenty of low income kids in earlier years who were competitive for college admissions, but could not swing the COA as that was not considered in financial aid packages at that time.

Fourth, similar to number two above, you may also be greatly overestimating how impressive your DCs' ECs are. Props to kids with jobs and helping out at home who still manage to get involved in ECs that actually make a difference in their community, not just on their college app.

[Anonymous]

Hhi is $500 kid got nearly a free ride to a top 20 law school. Merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe there are people like you who think the system isn’t broken and that others should have to pay for you - and that they should shut up and do it with a smile.

Lighten up, Francis. Nobody thinks that. Most reasonable people just think private colleges should get to pick folks and give merit however they want as long as they don't break the law.

Just like private businesses should get to hire whoever they want and pay them whatever they want as long as they don't break the law.

Why should YOU get to decide what they should do and how they should do it?

And before you trot out the "they pay no taxes" neither do any other non-profits like your church, your club, your PAC, etc etc...

And before you trot out the other canard "they get federal research money" yes they do, and YOU get the benefit of the research that results from it. That's what you get from that money, not the right to set admissions and financial aid policies.

Why should YOU get to decide those? Seriously asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe there are people like you who think the system isn’t broken and that others should have to pay for you - and that they should shut up and do it with a smile.

Lighten up, Francis. Nobody thinks that. Most reasonable people just think private colleges should get to pick folks and give merit however they want as long as they don't break the law.

Just like private businesses should get to hire whoever they want and pay them whatever they want as long as they don't break the law.

Why should YOU get to decide what they should do and how they should do it?

And before you trot out the "they pay no taxes" neither do any other non-profits like your church, your club, your PAC, etc etc...

And before you trot out the other canard "they get federal research money" yes they do, and YOU get the benefit of the research that results from it. That's what you get from that money, not the right to set admissions and financial aid policies.

Why should YOU get to decide those? Seriously asking.

Most of these schools are non-profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HHI is over $2 million. DC gets $24,000 merit aid at their college.

You should be embarrassed about taking the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HHI is over $2 million. DC gets $24,000 merit aid at their college.

You should be embarrassed about taking the money.

Not the PP, but why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HHI is over $2 million. DC gets $24,000 merit aid at their college.

You should be embarrassed about taking the money.

Not the PP, but why?

Gluttony?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It plays no role. Schools dont even have any financial info from most full pay families.

Exactly this. We are 1m HHI and my son got 32k over 4 years. Safety school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It plays no role. Schools dont even have any financial info from most full pay families.

Exactly this. We are 1m HHI and my son got 32k over 4 years. Safety school.

+1. HHI 800k and got $120k over 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Sophisticated enrollment management knows that a 20k merit award moves the needle a lot more for families making 200-300 than for families making 2-3mm. Merit is used for yield so .. of course it matters.

This is us. 80k plus is a just too much, as I'm not sure worth it.