Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is people who live under the delusion that they got where they are, attending elite schools, through meritocracy, rather than privilege, getting slapped in the face with reality.

MOST KIDS for the past 50 years who were "worthy" of T20 schools could not go. They didn't even apply.

Posters here clearly did apply and go. They had savvy parents who encouraged them to apply, could afford the tuition, and made it work.

Now they think, hey my kid is "worthy" but something is in my way. It must be (1) new and different (2) unfair.

No, it's how it's always been.

You are resorting to a false equivalency. I can see where your thinking is coming from and it's a corrupted way of thinking. You're not arguing for things to be made more equitable, you're defending the shifting of one perceived privilege to a different perceived privilege. You're effectively justifying today's inequity because things were inequitable in the past. And it's likely because you have a material interest in the current system and resent implications there's something wrong with it. The rich can still easily afford college, the poor get financial aid if they game the system, the middle classes get it harder and harder and people like you only scream and rant "privilege" in their faces while the real privilege, ie the rich, are utterly unaffected.

1) That's not what false equivalency means, I'm explaining history and attitudes.
2) Things are more equitable than ever in the sense that people are asked to pay what they can afford, as determined by a formula, including rich people paying proportionally more, which they should be able to.
3) I personally would be better off with the "old" way since I am full pay.
4) "People like me" are the "real" rich people who are unaffected either way but that doesn't make your belly-aching any more justified. Why should I subsidize someone making over $200k? Let's both pay sticker and subsidize people who can't afford it by making some lifestyle cutbacks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Calm down Marie Antoinette. People are not judging you for your decision, whatever it is. I'm not even clear if you have a kid or not as it doesn't seem like you've talked about their experiences. But going nyah nyah nyah when other people openly talk about their experiences and saying they can't afford Yale and walking away is something that you somehow are taking very personally and defensive about, to the point you openly challenge their experiences and even implying they're fraudulent and then still slapping them in the face with claims of privilege.

First: You need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution. I think you misunderstand which side you are on.

Second: I mentioned previously I am full pay X2. My choice, I do not hold anyone to my financial values.

But when people say they are pissed because the most generous schools on the planet are unaffordable, they ignore the fact that 99.9% of the families in the world don't get to make that choice for many reasons. That's what offends me. Don't come in here and dump on the most generous colleges, who moved hard to need-based aid over the past years, to justify your choice. Think about the people who have real hardships and no assets, and can't afford their state directional because the governments are choking the funds. I actually can't believe this is even a discussion. What about those kids?

I'm going to stop now, because I am repeating myself. I will return if the poster wants to show the actual data and I will run the NPC again.

Well said, PP.

I'm scratching my head reading a lot of the comments here. I think we would likely all agree that the staggering costs of college today are a bad thing, and we would all welcome reform. But the people with $200,000 plus incomes (or those with lower incomes, but lots of assets not including retirement) acting as if they have some special, serious hardship because they can't afford to send their kid to the most elite schools in the country need to look at the actual hardships faced by most of the country and the world. If you want to complain that very rich families have more options than regular rich families, that's your prerogative, and the some goes if you are bitter that a tiny handful of low income people with very bright kids have access to something your rich kids don't. But you should understand that many of us find your sense of entitlement to be offensive.

Is that what's really going on here? I don't see that at all. I see posters firmly saying we can't afford X college for Y reasons. They're not whining. They're stating something specific. But apparently they're not allowed to express regret either without people jumping on their toes.

What is whining are the posters saying "how dare you say you can't afford X college when you make Y amount" and ignore all the many many many reasons why that can be the case. That's where Marie Antoinette steps in - the utter cluelessness to how other people can have obstacles or obligations despite a comfortable income. And those illustrate the flaws to the financial aid calculators.

As you said, most if not all of us agree the high tuition bills are ridiculous and scandalous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

you clearly don't know what poor means. Even CC is out of reach for the truly poor.

Ivies are out of reach for me at full price and I make $240k. So in the context of this discussion, I am poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know what Yale means by "typical assets." Our house is paid off and our HHI is $240K. We have about a year's worth of living expenses in a savings account per our financial planner's advice (the FP also advised us to have the house paid off by the time DH was 65), and we have retirement savings.

I'm 60 and DH will be 65 this year, and has Parkinson's - he will retire in the next year or so. We certainly expect he will need long-term care, which neither FAFSA nor the CSS contemplate. He has other health issues that have made him ineligible for long-term care insurance (and for that matter, for disability insurance other than what he has at work). Dementia and longevity run in both of our families.

We can pay about $50K/year per kid for college, and no more.

I anticipate that DCUM will tell us to use everything we have outside of retirement accounts, including our home equity, but our FP (and any others who know what they are talking about) would disagree.

OK, so what we have here is a family who has (i) a paid off house; (ii) tens of thousands of dollars in a savings account; (iii) approximately $400,000 in college savings for 2 kids; (iv) and makes $240,000 each year (with no mortgage).

And this family is complaining that it is just so unfair that they are not getting aid sufficient that their kid could attend one of the top colleges in the country, debt-free.

If this doesn't demonstrate how ridiculous many of these complaints are, I don't know what does.

What you're not taking into the account is the other side of the equation - namely, that Yale has a 25 BILLION dollar endowment. They don't need any student's money. The fact that they still want to shake every last possible penny out of a well-off but by no means astronomically rich family like the PP here is absurd, ridiculous, predatory, and objectionable.

Expecting people in the top 5%? 3%? of Americans to pay for their elite private education is predatory? Objectionable? All aid should be tailored so that it makes up the difference between what a family has saved for college and the tuition cost? [Yes, because that "elite" institution is actually a mega-wealthy corporation that is preying on the upper middle class - and it's not OK to prey on the UMC just because they are not "poor".]

This is a *private* college. There are literally hundreds of other, less costly choices. [It is a large, very wealthy corporation that receives considerable government support both directly and indirectly. They should not be allowed to just do whatever they want and exploit whoever they want. And this is not about "just go somewhere else, it'll be just as good". If we say "tough shit, go somewhere else" to UMC kids then we should say the same to minority and truly poor kids too. ]

No one who (i) can get into Yale, and (ii) whose parents have saved $200,000 for college education is going to be denied an undergraduate degree.

You're being silly. [You are being illogical.]

If we say "tough shit, go somewhere else" to UMC kids then we should say the same to minority and truly poor kids too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is people who live under the delusion that they got where they are, attending elite schools, through meritocracy, rather than privilege, getting slapped in the face with reality.

MOST KIDS for the past 50 years who were "worthy" of T20 schools could not go. They didn't even apply.

Posters here clearly did apply and go. They had savvy parents who encouraged them to apply, could afford the tuition, and made it work.

Now they think, hey my kid is "worthy" but something is in my way. It must be (1) new and different (2) unfair.

No, it's how it's always been.

You are resorting to a false equivalency. I can see where your thinking is coming from and it's a corrupted way of thinking. You're not arguing for things to be made more equitable, you're defending the shifting of one perceived privilege to a different perceived privilege. You're effectively justifying today's inequity because things were inequitable in the past. And it's likely because you have a material interest in the current system and resent implications there's something wrong with it. The rich can still easily afford college, the poor get financial aid if they game the system, the middle classes get it harder and harder and people like you only scream and rant "privilege" in their faces while the real privilege, ie the rich, are utterly unaffected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is people who live under the delusion that they got where they are, attending elite schools, through meritocracy, rather than privilege, getting slapped in the face with reality.

MOST KIDS for the past 50 years who were "worthy" of T20 schools could not go. They didn't even apply.

Posters here clearly did apply and go. They had savvy parents who encouraged them to apply, could afford the tuition, and made it work.

Now they think, hey my kid is "worthy" but something is in my way. It must be (1) new and different (2) unfair.

No, it's how it's always been.

You are resorting to a false equivalency. I can see where your thinking is coming from and it's a corrupted way of thinking. You're not arguing for things to be made more equitable, you're defending the shifting of one perceived privilege to a different perceived privilege. You're effectively justifying today's inequity because things were inequitable in the past. And it's likely because you have a material interest in the current system and resent implications there's something wrong with it. The rich can still easily afford college, the poor get financial aid if they game the system, the middle classes get it harder and harder and people like you only scream and rant "privilege" in their faces while the real privilege, ie the rich, are utterly unaffected.

Anonymous wrote:This is people who live under the delusion that they got where they are, attending elite schools, through meritocracy, rather than privilege, getting slapped in the face with reality.

MOST KIDS for the past 50 years who were "worthy" of T20 schools could not go. They didn't even apply.

Posters here clearly did apply and go. They had savvy parents who encouraged them to apply, could afford the tuition, and made it work.

Now they think, hey my kid is "worthy" but something is in my way. It must be (1) new and different (2) unfair.

No, it's how it's always been.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know what Yale means by "typical assets." Our house is paid off and our HHI is $240K. We have about a year's worth of living expenses in a savings account per our financial planner's advice (the FP also advised us to have the house paid off by the time DH was 65), and we have retirement savings.

I'm 60 and DH will be 65 this year, and has Parkinson's - he will retire in the next year or so. We certainly expect he will need long-term care, which neither FAFSA nor the CSS contemplate. He has other health issues that have made him ineligible for long-term care insurance (and for that matter, for disability insurance other than what he has at work). Dementia and longevity run in both of our families.

We can pay about $50K/year per kid for college, and no more.

I anticipate that DCUM will tell us to use everything we have outside of retirement accounts, including our home equity, but our FP (and any others who know what they are talking about) would disagree.

OK, so what we have here is a family who has (i) a paid off house; (ii) tens of thousands of dollars in a savings account; (iii) approximately $400,000 in college savings for 2 kids; (iv) and makes $240,000 each year (with no mortgage).

And this family is complaining that it is just so unfair that they are not getting aid sufficient that their kid could attend one of the top colleges in the country, debt-free.

If this doesn't demonstrate how ridiculous many of these complaints are, I don't know what does.

What you're not taking into the account is the other side of the equation - namely, that Yale has a 25 BILLION dollar endowment. They don't need any student's money. The fact that they still want to shake every last possible penny out of a well-off but by no means astronomically rich family like the PP here is absurd, ridiculous, predatory, and objectionable.

Expecting people in the top 5%? 3%? of Americans to pay for their elite private education is predatory? Objectionable? All aid should be tailored so that it makes up the difference between what a family has saved for college and the tuition cost? [Yes, because that "elite" institution is actually a mega-wealthy corporation that is preying on the upper middle class - and it's not OK to prey on the UMC just because they are not "poor".]

This is a *private* college. There are literally hundreds of other, less costly choices. [It is a large, very wealthy corporation that receives considerable government support both directly and indirectly. They should not be allowed to just do whatever they want and exploit whoever they want. And this is not about "just go somewhere else, it'll be just as good". If we say "tough shit, go somewhere else" to UMC kids then we should say the same to minority and truly poor kids too. ]

No one who (i) can get into Yale, and (ii) whose parents have saved $200,000 for college education is going to be denied an undergraduate degree.

You're being silly. [You are being illogical.]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

you clearly don't know what poor means. Even CC is out of reach for the truly poor.

Ivies are out of reach for me at full price and I make $240k. So in the context of this discussion, I am poor.

A private jet is out of reach for me at full price and I make $500K. So in the context of that discussion, I am poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Income isn't the only variable. Assets matter too, as well as a host of other factors (special situations such as substantial medical expenses, special needs child, etc.). Those who were both in a position to start saving early, and in fact did save early, may still find it possible.

If a college isn't affordable, then find another college. Elite privates are not the only way to skin the cat. No one is entitled to an elite private, nor is that necessary for success. There is always another way.

Now apply that logic to poor people and minorities. Let ‘em all go to community college, right?

The OP is simply arguing for a redefinition of “poor”.

you clearly don't know what poor means. Even CC is out of reach for the truly poor.

Ivies are out of reach for me at full price and I make $240k. So in the context of this discussion, I am poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Calm down Marie Antoinette. People are not judging you for your decision, whatever it is. I'm not even clear if you have a kid or not as it doesn't seem like you've talked about their experiences. But going nyah nyah nyah when other people openly talk about their experiences and saying they can't afford Yale and walking away is something that you somehow are taking very personally and defensive about, to the point you openly challenge their experiences and even implying they're fraudulent and then still slapping them in the face with claims of privilege.

First: You need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution. I think you misunderstand which side you are on.

Second: I mentioned previously I am full pay X2. My choice, I do not hold anyone to my financial values.

But when people say they are pissed because the most generous schools on the planet are unaffordable, they ignore the fact that 99.9% of the families in the world don't get to make that choice for many reasons. That's what offends me. Don't come in here and dump on the most generous colleges, who moved hard to need-based aid over the past years, to justify your choice. Think about the people who have real hardships and no assets, and can't afford their state directional because the governments are choking the funds. I actually can't believe this is even a discussion. What about those kids?

I'm going to stop now, because I am repeating myself. I will return if the poster wants to show the actual data and I will run the NPC again.

Well said, PP.

I'm scratching my head reading a lot of the comments here. I think we would likely all agree that the staggering costs of college today are a bad thing, and we would all welcome reform. But the people with $200,000 plus incomes (or those with lower incomes, but lots of assets not including retirement) acting as if they have some special, serious hardship because they can't afford to send their kid to the most elite schools in the country need to look at the actual hardships faced by most of the country and the world. If you want to complain that very rich families have more options than regular rich families, that's your prerogative, and the some goes if you are bitter that a tiny handful of low income people with very bright kids have access to something your rich kids don't. But you should understand that many of us find your sense of entitlement to be offensive.

Is that what's really going on here? I don't see that at all. I see posters firmly saying we can't afford X college for Y reasons. They're not whining. They're stating something specific. But apparently they're not allowed to express regret either without people jumping on their toes.

What is whining are the posters saying "how dare you say you can't afford X college when you make Y amount" and ignore all the many many many reasons why that can be the case. That's where Marie Antoinette steps in - the utter cluelessness to how other people can have obstacles or obligations despite a comfortable income. And those illustrate the flaws to the financial aid calculators.

As you said, most if not all of us agree the high tuition bills are ridiculous and scandalous.

You left something out of the bolded - those same posters (or many of them) are lamenting that they don't get aid to allow them to afford those colleges. They're claiming it's unfair for elite institutions to charge them the sticker price, while they give others who have even less money aid.

That's absurd, bordering on offensive.

Nah. Where the cutoff for aid should be is a perfectly legitimate issue for debate.

Anonymous wrote:The elite privates used to be only for the elite, and now they are reverting back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know what Yale means by "typical assets." Our house is paid off and our HHI is $240K. We have about a year's worth of living expenses in a savings account per our financial planner's advice (the FP also advised us to have the house paid off by the time DH was 65), and we have retirement savings.

I'm 60 and DH will be 65 this year, and has Parkinson's - he will retire in the next year or so. We certainly expect he will need long-term care, which neither FAFSA nor the CSS contemplate. He has other health issues that have made him ineligible for long-term care insurance (and for that matter, for disability insurance other than what he has at work). Dementia and longevity run in both of our families.

We can pay about $50K/year per kid for college, and no more.

I anticipate that DCUM will tell us to use everything we have outside of retirement accounts, including our home equity, but our FP (and any others who know what they are talking about) would disagree.

OK, so what we have here is a family who has (i) a paid off house; (ii) tens of thousands of dollars in a savings account; (iii) approximately $400,000 in college savings for 2 kids; (iv) and makes $240,000 each year (with no mortgage).

And this family is complaining that it is just so unfair that they are not getting aid sufficient that their kid could attend one of the top colleges in the country, debt-free.

If this doesn't demonstrate how ridiculous many of these complaints are, I don't know what does.

What you're not taking into the account is the other side of the equation - namely, that Yale has a 25 BILLION dollar endowment. They don't need any student's money. The fact that they still want to shake every last possible penny out of a well-off but by no means astronomically rich family like the PP here is absurd, ridiculous, predatory, and objectionable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Calm down Marie Antoinette. People are not judging you for your decision, whatever it is. I'm not even clear if you have a kid or not as it doesn't seem like you've talked about their experiences. But going nyah nyah nyah when other people openly talk about their experiences and saying they can't afford Yale and walking away is something that you somehow are taking very personally and defensive about, to the point you openly challenge their experiences and even implying they're fraudulent and then still slapping them in the face with claims of privilege.

First: You need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution. I think you misunderstand which side you are on.

Second: I mentioned previously I am full pay X2. My choice, I do not hold anyone to my financial values.

But when people say they are pissed because the most generous schools on the planet are unaffordable, they ignore the fact that 99.9% of the families in the world don't get to make that choice for many reasons. That's what offends me. Don't come in here and dump on the most generous colleges, who moved hard to need-based aid over the past years, to justify your choice. Think about the people who have real hardships and no assets, and can't afford their state directional because the governments are choking the funds. I actually can't believe this is even a discussion. What about those kids?

I'm going to stop now, because I am repeating myself. I will return if the poster wants to show the actual data and I will run the NPC again.

Well said, PP.

I'm scratching my head reading a lot of the comments here. I think we would likely all agree that the staggering costs of college today are a bad thing, and we would all welcome reform. But the people with $200,000 plus incomes (or those with lower incomes, but lots of assets not including retirement) acting as if they have some special, serious hardship because they can't afford to send their kid to the most elite schools in the country need to look at the actual hardships faced by most of the country and the world. If you want to complain that very rich families have more options than regular rich families, that's your prerogative, and the some goes if you are bitter that a tiny handful of low income people with very bright kids have access to something your rich kids don't. But you should understand that many of us find your sense of entitlement to be offensive.

Is that what's really going on here? I don't see that at all. I see posters firmly saying we can't afford X college for Y reasons. They're not whining. They're stating something specific. But apparently they're not allowed to express regret either without people jumping on their toes.

What is whining are the posters saying "how dare you say you can't afford X college when you make Y amount" and ignore all the many many many reasons why that can be the case. That's where Marie Antoinette steps in - the utter cluelessness to how other people can have obstacles or obligations despite a comfortable income. And those illustrate the flaws to the financial aid calculators.

As you said, most if not all of us agree the high tuition bills are ridiculous and scandalous.

You left something out of the bolded - those same posters (or many of them) are lamenting that they don't get aid to allow them to afford those colleges. They're claiming it's unfair for elite institutions to charge them the sticker price, while they give others who have even less money aid.

That's absurd, bordering on offensive.

And I agree with a PP - your knowledge of the French Revolution is . . . spotty, at best. Here's a hint - it was not about people with comfortable income having obstacles or obligations. FFS.