Parents giving up custody of their kids to get need based financial aid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did the FAFSA rules change re counting parental income if you were no longer dependent on your parents? Meaning living on your own, working, paying for your own at expenses at 18+.

You’re independent at 24 or if in grad school. It has been that way for a long time.

In the early 200s when I was in grad and undergrad, I was independent at 18. I lived on my own, paid my own insurance, worked, and went to school. I received grants and loans. Parental income was never required as I was independent. It sounds like today, you can be 18 and living on your own with no support from your parents and still not be considered independent.

No, you're misremembering. In 2000, independence was still 24 and above. The policy was still that a parents unwillingness to pay did not create independence.

https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/sech6-app.pdf

Lol. You think I’m misremembering that I had parents pay tuition for me that I did not? Sorry sweets, there were clearly exceptions allowed. I worked FT afternoons/evenings/weekends and made between 13-19k during those years. No parental income was required by GMU’s financial aid office. I didn’t even know where my parents were to have asked them to provide their income. Things clearly weren’t as black and white as you claim they were.

Backing you up. A bit earlier, about 1994-95, my friend established her independence by being on her own, working, paying taxes, renting for 2 years after high school. No one went after her parents. That was in MA.

why don't you look at the actual official document I posted, which relates to 2000, and states in black and white that independence starts at 24 for undergrad, for federal aid?

the current definition of "independent student" as starting at 24 has been around for over a generation. it's not the source of our current issues with college costs.

So PP who do you think paid for my last two years of college in 2000 and 2001?

[Anonymous]

Things were no different when I was in college in the early 2000s. I got screwed because I grew up on a farm, so "on paper" my family had a lot of assets and "income". reality was very different, we skimped to get by because you have to spend money to make money farming (fertilizer, labor during harvest, even diesel for the tractor adds up FAST). And the land value. Basically, I was told my family was supposed to pitch in by selling the farm. Um, not possible.

So I went to a small in-state school 3 days a week, got a scholarship, worked a FT job the other days, and graduated debt free. Sure, I turned down the top tier school I was admitted to that costs 4x as much. It simply made sense to do so.

So many parents are obsessed with sending kids to the highest ranked school they can possibly be admitted to, or the school their kid dreams of attending. It is often a nonsensical decision, one that those kids can bear the burden of for decades.

Send your kid to the school that makes sense, not the "dream school," if that is what you can afford. They will thank you later. Or if not, you can rest assured they aren't paying off their stupid teenage decisions into their forties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did the FAFSA rules change re counting parental income if you were no longer dependent on your parents? Meaning living on your own, working, paying for your own at expenses at 18+.

You’re independent at 24 or if in grad school. It has been that way for a long time.

In the early 200s when I was in grad and undergrad, I was independent at 18. I lived on my own, paid my own insurance, worked, and went to school. I received grants and loans. Parental income was never required as I was independent. It sounds like today, you can be 18 and living on your own with no support from your parents and still not be considered independent.

No, you're misremembering. In 2000, independence was still 24 and above. The policy was still that a parents unwillingness to pay did not create independence.

https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/sech6-app.pdf

Lol. You think I’m misremembering that I had parents pay tuition for me that I did not? Sorry sweets, there were clearly exceptions allowed. I worked FT afternoons/evenings/weekends and made between 13-19k during those years. No parental income was required by GMU’s financial aid office. I didn’t even know where my parents were to have asked them to provide their income. Things clearly weren’t as black and white as you claim they were.

Backing you up. A bit earlier, about 1994-95, my friend established her independence by being on her own, working, paying taxes, renting for 2 years after high school. No one went after her parents. That was in MA.

why don't you look at the actual official document I posted, which relates to 2000, and states in black and white that independence starts at 24 for undergrad, for federal aid?

the current definition of "independent student" as starting at 24 has been around for over a generation. it's not the source of our current issues with college costs.

So PP who do you think paid for my last two years of college in 2000 and 2001?

Well, produce your FAFSA and financial aid paperwork, and I'll tell you what your eligiblity status was. All I can say is that the official policy (dating from the 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act) was that you were not independent until 24. Obviously this doesn't mean that your parents actually paid anything. I think you're likely confused between your parents' EFC and your dependency status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many people who get zero support from their families for college who can't get any type of financial aid because of their parents' income. Once they are over 18, even if they pay all their own expenses, there is no way (other than getting married) to not have their parents' income considered for financial aid purposes. If I were in that boat, I'd try to get declared independent of my parents before I become 18. If they aren't paying for me once I move out, I don't consider it fraud. If the government feels so strongly that parents should pay, count their support and garnish their wages for their deemed portion. It's not fair to not do that and then attribute income to students who don't see a dime.

They are paying for their kids health insurance during college, and few moved out. They are not independent

In the cases in the article, but there are many students who don't get any support and are still burdened with counting their parents' income.

Well yeah ... our higher ed finance system generally views parents as having the responsibility to help pay for undergrad until the child is 24. There are a lot of messed up things about college costs, but I can't really get that exercised about this one. For really extreme cases (abuse) individual financial aid officers can override the policy.

Obviously, you haven't talked to millions (?) of kids who didn't get FA and couldn't afford college or are settled with high debts because their deadbeat and absent parents made too much money and they couldn't declare themselves independent. Go outside your comfort zone sometimes.

Those who cry fraud should read the court briefs filed by those people. I particularly like the phrase: "The Guardian can provide educational and financial support and opportunities to the minor that her parents could not otherwise provide" - that's really rubbing it in, isn't it. Have a court certify that a child is better off educationally if their parents drop them. That's what happened here apparently.

Agreed. I've come across plenty of stories of people who had to turn down a more expensive college because parents refused to pay. We're not talking about turning down an Ivy for instate, but turning down a solid instate school to go to community colleges.

Then at the same time the colleges willingly admit students who can only afford to come by taking out huge loans and are saddled with an enormous debt upon graduation. They let these students enroll and promise them it's no big deal and they'll be sure to pay it off quickly. Then the student graduates and real world hits them in the face and they're still paying off the loans decades later.

Then you have schools giving out merit aid to students who turn up on campus in new BMWs (yes, I remember a few instances of this happening).

The whole system is utterly broken and it's driven by out of reality tuition levels.

The broken part is that states are cutting taxes and not funding public colleges.

I feel sorry for that (small) number of kids with deadbeat parents, but the system cannot be shaped around them. They can go to community college, or wait until 24 when they are considered independent by FAFSA.

The lack of public funding has little to do with the skyrocketing costs of private college tuition, which has rapidly outpaced inflation. The whole system is broken. A lot of it is clearly because loans are so easy to get so colleges keep raising tuition with the knowledge that students will just take out more loans backed by the feds. It's a systematic failure due to many factors, not just one or two.

Well, your kid is not entitled to go to a private college. By choosing a private college, you're choosing to pay that price.

You also missed the point. Public college costs have risen for the same reasons as private college costs. They are not independent of each other. Blaming tax cuts only allows you to ignore all the other reasons for skyrocketing tuition.

Public college tuition increases are driven in large part by state funding cuts. This is pretty well researched. https://www.ppic.org/publication/higher-education-in-california-student-costs/ and https://hechingerreport.org/americans-think-state-funding-for-higher-ed-has-held-steady-or-risen-survey-finds/

[Anonymous]

You also missed the point. Public college costs have risen for the same reasons as private college costs. They are not independent of each other. Blaming tax cuts only allows you to ignore all the other reasons for skyrocketing tuition.

Public college tuition increases are driven in large part by state funding cuts. This is pretty well researched. https://www.ppic.org/publication/higher-education-in-california-student-costs/ and https://hechingerreport.org/americans-think-state-funding-for-higher-ed-has-held-steady-or-risen-survey-finds/




What I don't get is why most universities/colleges in the US charge the same for every subject. Why should someone have to pay more for a French literature or English degree as someone studying engineering, chemistry or biology using labs full of expensive equipment. Given that engineering and sciences probably pay more on average after graduation, colleges could charge these students more so that the French lit student doesn't have to subsidize the engineers. I looked at the university fees at one university in NZ (where I'm from). Veterinary science credits cost more than 2x the Arts subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You also missed the point. Public college costs have risen for the same reasons as private college costs. They are not independent of each other. Blaming tax cuts only allows you to ignore all the other reasons for skyrocketing tuition.

Public college tuition increases are driven in large part by state funding cuts. This is pretty well researched. https://www.ppic.org/publication/higher-education-in-california-student-costs/ and https://hechingerreport.org/americans-think-state-funding-for-higher-ed-has-held-steady-or-risen-survey-finds/




What I don't get is why most universities/colleges in the US charge the same for every subject. Why should someone have to pay more for a French literature or English degree as someone studying engineering, chemistry or biology using labs full of expensive equipment. Given that engineering and sciences probably pay more on average after graduation, colleges could charge these students more so that the French lit student doesn't have to subsidize the engineers. I looked at the university fees at one university in NZ (where I'm from). Veterinary science credits cost more than 2x the Arts subjects.



I meant "pay the same for"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did the FAFSA rules change re counting parental income if you were no longer dependent on your parents? Meaning living on your own, working, paying for your own at expenses at 18+.

You’re independent at 24 or if in grad school. It has been that way for a long time.

In the early 200s when I was in grad and undergrad, I was independent at 18. I lived on my own, paid my own insurance, worked, and went to school. I received grants and loans. Parental income was never required as I was independent. It sounds like today, you can be 18 and living on your own with no support from your parents and still not be considered independent.

No, you're misremembering. In 2000, independence was still 24 and above. The policy was still that a parents unwillingness to pay did not create independence.

https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/sech6-app.pdf

Lol. You think I’m misremembering that I had parents pay tuition for me that I did not? Sorry sweets, there were clearly exceptions allowed. I worked FT afternoons/evenings/weekends and made between 13-19k during those years. No parental income was required by GMU’s financial aid office. I didn’t even know where my parents were to have asked them to provide their income. Things clearly weren’t as black and white as you claim they were.

Backing you up. A bit earlier, about 1994-95, my friend established her independence by being on her own, working, paying taxes, renting for 2 years after high school. No one went after her parents. That was in MA.

why don't you look at the actual official document I posted, which relates to 2000, and states in black and white that independence starts at 24 for undergrad, for federal aid?

the current definition of "independent student" as starting at 24 has been around for over a generation. it's not the source of our current issues with college costs.

So PP who do you think paid for my last two years of college in 2000 and 2001?

Well, produce your FAFSA and financial aid paperwork, and I'll tell you what your eligiblity status was. All I can say is that the official policy (dating from the 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act) was that you were not independent until 24. Obviously this doesn't mean that your parents actually paid anything. I think you're likely confused between your parents' EFC and your dependency status.

There have always been exceptions for children who spent time in the foster care system or were otherwise legally emancipated. Not sure if any of that applies to the PP, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's already a thread on this. People have pointed out that if universities and colleges weren't so greedy, and top administrators so obnoxious, that families wouldn't go to such lengths. In European countries, nobody does this because tuition is very reasonable, if not free.

When people start doing crazy things, it's wise to look at the overall picture, instead of blaming the individuals.

Yes, but in Europe, families also pay high taxes and live in apartments. Would you be willing to move into an apartment for the rest of your life?

[Anonymous]

I can't believe there are people on this thread trying to justify theft. These parents are all in high paying careers and their kids were getting Pell grants which are for very low income students. I qualified for substantial financial aid as a lower-middle income child, but I wasn't eligible for a Pell grant, and here are the kids of doctors and lawyers taking those grants away from actual poor kids.

ProPublica identified nearly four dozen families in one Chicago-area county that filed this type of guardianship in the past 18 months, as well as petitions in several other nearby counties. Students qualified for federal Pell Grants and state Pell Grants, known in Illinois as the Monetary Award Program (MAP). Together, these grants are worth about $11,000 per year.

Andy Borst, director of undergraduate admission at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says that rising college costs may be motivating bad actors. “I think that they’re feeling the pressure of the costs of a college education and that pressure is leading to unethical decisions,” he tells CNBC Make It.

College costs have increased steadily over the past several decades, rising fastest at four-year public universities. According to the College Board’s 2018 Trends in College Pricing Report, from 1988 to 2018, sticker prices doubled private nonprofit four-year schools but tripled for in-state students at four-year public universities. During the 2018-2019 school year, published in?state tuition and fees at public four?year schools averaged $10,230.

The University of Illinois identified 14 students (three who’ve completed freshman year and 11 who will enroll in the fall) who used this drastic method to secure need-based aid after high school counselors started wondering why wealthy students were getting invited to special programming for low-income students. “They started asking questions, and that tipped us off to look deeper into our information, because this isn’t something that we would have necessarily thought to look for otherwise,” says Borst.

He stresses that while families may think they’ve identified a harmless hack, the practice has a direct impact on low-income students. “Financial aid resources are not unlimited,” he says. “Whether we’re talking about the federal government, the state government, or even institutional aid — there’s only so much to go around.”

Because federal and state Pell Grants are distributed on a first-come first-served basis, many low-income students don’t receive the funds they qualify for. According to ProPublica, last year about 82,000 qualifying Illinois students did not get their $5,000 MAP grant for this reason.

[Anonymous]

With the sky rocketing costs high schoolers will start looking at the other loophole and marry each other to be able to claim independence. With a good prenup it might work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought about this. I’m a single mom of two and ex will not be helping. But my income is at $180k so I anticipate no help. Meanwhile my mom lives in upstate NY and if my eldest went to live with her could qualify for NY free tuition.
As you know $180 is not much around here.

I live in the DC area and I wish I had 180K. You can actually do a lot with 180K. Plus, at the very elite institutions your kid would still qualify for aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's already a thread on this. People have pointed out that if universities and colleges weren't so greedy, and top administrators so obnoxious, that families wouldn't go to such lengths. In European countries, nobody does this because tuition is very reasonable, if not free.

When people start doing crazy things, it's wise to look at the overall picture, instead of blaming the individuals.

Yes, but in Europe, families also pay high taxes and live in apartments. Would you be willing to move into an apartment for the rest of your life?

For free college, universal health care, better food, culture, and 4-6 weeks vacation? YOU BET!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's already a thread on this. People have pointed out that if universities and colleges weren't so greedy, and top administrators so obnoxious, that families wouldn't go to such lengths. In European countries, nobody does this because tuition is very reasonable, if not free.

When people start doing crazy things, it's wise to look at the overall picture, instead of blaming the individuals.

Yes, but in Europe, families also pay high taxes and live in apartments. Would you be willing to move into an apartment for the rest of your life?

Like a New Yorker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With the sky rocketing costs high schoolers will start looking at the other loophole and marry each other to be able to claim independence. With a good prenup it might work.

I was also wondering that. Married at 18; no fault divorce 4 years later. No assets & no kids. Do you even have to live together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's already a thread on this. People have pointed out that if universities and colleges weren't so greedy, and top administrators so obnoxious, that families wouldn't go to such lengths. In European countries, nobody does this because tuition is very reasonable, if not free.

When people start doing crazy things, it's wise to look at the overall picture, instead of blaming the individuals.

Yes, but in Europe, families also pay high taxes and live in apartments. Would you be willing to move into an apartment for the rest of your life?

Homeownership rates in Europe, 2017: https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-rate-in-europe/
USA: 64.1%. They're slightly lower in some European countries (higher in others), but most families do not live in apartments.

And, btw, using taxes for higher education means that the cost of college (which is an investment in the future of society) is borne by all in a progressive manner, not by a handful of donut holers.
I recommend you get a passport (hint: local courthouse), book a flight to Europe and spend a couple of weeks driving on their roads, eating in their restaurants, and looking at places to live.
Then go back home to your huffing-puffing-blow-your-house-in wooden stick house built out of soft pine lumber and plaster with a 60-year economic life and rejoice that you don't live in an apartment.