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

[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.

Your parents had ALMOST $700k IN TODAY’S DOLLARS FOR SECONDARY ED and you’re holding your family up as an example of how our poor beleaguered wealthy Americans can’t afford HYP without loans? Wow.

No. What the poster said is that by working and saving, they and their siblings were able to pay for a significant portion of their tuition themselves. Their parents did not have to have that much money to send all to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But the NPC for each school is more accurate for their own expectations. We found them to be dead on the money. They need to be for private schools because if you opt to apply ED the way out of it is if the financial aid doesn't match what the NPC predicted. Private schools rely on the CSS profile and their own interpretation of it which has little to do with FAFSA.

[Anonymous]

Why would they care? They can fill their freshman classes easily.

You shouldn't assume rich kids are dumb. THAT's dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is true, my kids working their butts off over the summer are able to make hardly more than I did as a teen 30 years ago. There aren't as many flexible jobs willing to hire seasonally and minimum wage has not kept up with regular inflation let alone higher ed cost.

[Anonymous]

SLAC stands for Small liberal arts college. That means less slots to fill and private about how much grant $$ they are giving out. There’s a huge difference between a class of 5000 students compared to 300 students. They can find enough rich students to fill the class and merit aid the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But the NPC for each school is more accurate for their own expectations. We found them to be dead on the money. They need to be for private schools because if you opt to apply ED the way out of it is if the financial aid doesn't match what the NPC predicted. Private schools rely on the CSS profile and their own interpretation of it which has little to do with FAFSA.

But the CSS profile does not give a family's expected contribution. It is just a detailed information about a family's financial situation. Only FAFSA gives what a family is expected to contribute. We are going through the undergraduate application process right now. We will see if any private schools will offer any financial aid. The fAFSA says we don't qualify for any. The CSS profile doesn't give any information on what we are expected to contribute. When we used the quick EFC calculator (simplified EFC calculator that asks very few questions) found in certain private school websites, it gives three different dollar amounts of family contributions (lowest amount, likely amount, highest amount). The highest amount is closest to but somewhat less than what FAFSA expects us to contribute. And the FAFSA amount is higher than the COA of the schools.

[Anonymous]

My DD won’t qualify for an elite private SAT 1300 (hoping to push it up), UGPA. We aren’t willing to pay 70k for a second rate private so if will be public schools only that DD will apply to.

[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.

You mean the liberal elites that vote for increased student aid and student loan debt relief, only to have those policies gutted when a Republican gets in office? Those liberal elites?

You are either enormously stupid or really bad at trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But the NPC for each school is more accurate for their own expectations. We found them to be dead on the money. They need to be for private schools because if you opt to apply ED the way out of it is if the financial aid doesn't match what the NPC predicted. Private schools rely on the CSS profile and their own interpretation of it which has little to do with FAFSA.

But the CSS profile does not give a family's expected contribution. It is just a detailed information about a family's financial situation. Only FAFSA gives what a family is expected to contribute. We are going through the undergraduate application process right now. We will see if any private schools will offer any financial aid. The fAFSA says we don't qualify for any. The CSS profile doesn't give any information on what we are expected to contribute. When we used the quick EFC calculator (simplified EFC calculator that asks very few questions) found in certain private school websites, it gives three different dollar amounts of family contributions (lowest amount, likely amount, highest amount). The highest amount is closest to but somewhat less than what FAFSA expects us to contribute. And the FAFSA amount is higher than the COA of the schools.

FAFSA only tells you if you qualify for federal aid. Lots of people get school-based aid even though their income is too high for FAFSA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But the NPC for each school is more accurate for their own expectations. We found them to be dead on the money. They need to be for private schools because if you opt to apply ED the way out of it is if the financial aid doesn't match what the NPC predicted. Private schools rely on the CSS profile and their own interpretation of it which has little to do with FAFSA.

But the CSS profile does not give a family's expected contribution. It is just a detailed information about a family's financial situation. Only FAFSA gives what a family is expected to contribute. We are going through the undergraduate application process right now. We will see if any private schools will offer any financial aid. The fAFSA says we don't qualify for any. The CSS profile doesn't give any information on what we are expected to contribute. When we used the quick EFC calculator (simplified EFC calculator that asks very few questions) found in certain private school websites, it gives three different dollar amounts of family contributions (lowest amount, likely amount, highest amount). The highest amount is closest to but somewhat less than what FAFSA expects us to contribute. And the FAFSA amount is higher than the COA of the schools.

FAFSA only tells you if you qualify for federal aid. Lots of people get school-based aid even though their income is too high for FAFSA.

Thank you. Your response gives me some hope. We will know for sure in the next few months.

[Anonymous]

Apparently, places like Harvard only want super rich kids or kids from modest families, and nothing in between. $200k hhi with multiple kids cannot afford their tuition. Well, I suppose we could if we basically cash out our retirement and live hand to mouth from now till we die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But the NPC for each school is more accurate for their own expectations. We found them to be dead on the money. They need to be for private schools because if you opt to apply ED the way out of it is if the financial aid doesn't match what the NPC predicted. Private schools rely on the CSS profile and their own interpretation of it which has little to do with FAFSA.

But the CSS profile does not give a family's expected contribution. It is just a detailed information about a family's financial situation. Only FAFSA gives what a family is expected to contribute. We are going through the undergraduate application process right now. We will see if any private schools will offer any financial aid. The fAFSA says we don't qualify for any. The CSS profile doesn't give any information on what we are expected to contribute. When we used the quick EFC calculator (simplified EFC calculator that asks very few questions) found in certain private school websites, it gives three different dollar amounts of family contributions (lowest amount, likely amount, highest amount). The highest amount is closest to but somewhat less than what FAFSA expects us to contribute. And the FAFSA amount is higher than the COA of the schools.

FAFSA only tells you if you qualify for federal aid. Lots of people get school-based aid even though their income is too high for FAFSA.

Thank you. Your response gives me some hope. We will know for sure in the next few months.

NP. Good luck to you. We have three going thru the process. We make too much to qualify for financial aid under FAFSA, but took out the unsubsidized $5500 loans so all children would have skin in the game. Fortunately (I guess) my kids tried for the elite schools and SLACs and received no merit offers from the schools that interested them where they were accepted. They were, however, offered out of the blue merit scholarships from some small SLACs you've never heard of which were willing to trade a $28K scholarship for DC's high ACT scores. But those schools did not offer the programs that DC wanted. So we are out of pocket for everything but the $5500+ loans. Even after subtracting the $26K from the $75K of the slacs, UVA was the better deal so all three went to in-state Virginia schools, which was a huge blessing. We banked the difference and with the help of this robust market now are able to pay for a good portion of the upcoming grad school fees. We are MC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You mean the liberal elites that vote for increased student aid and student loan debt relief, only to have those policies gutted when a Republican gets in office? Those liberal elites?

You are either enormously stupid or really bad at trolling.

I am talking about the liberal elites who have increased elite private education to over $70,000/year.
You're mind is clouded that the liberal elites are actually good people trying to raise others up. THey are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No response to this? I guess that means a "yes".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, places like Harvard only want super rich kids or kids from modest families, and nothing in between. $200k hhi with multiple kids cannot afford their tuition. Well, I suppose we could if we basically cash out our retirement and live hand to mouth from now till we die.

Assuming this is true, what is the problem? Harvard is allowed to run their admission as they like. If this is what works for them, there are still lots of other great schools out there that you can afford. And consider this-- those kids attending Harvard coming from modest backgrounds-- Harvard has a reason for why it wants them. It's Harvard's choice. Let it go.

Maybe Harvard is now more out of reach for UMC than it used to be. So what? Maybe in Harvard's perspective that's a feature and not a bug.