Anonymous wrote:As I said upthread, this thread is revealing a lot of people who grew up well-off enough to think they were entitled to the best school they could get into and are horrified to discover they have to be rich themselves to give their kids that same reality. Those of us who didn't grow up rich aren't shocked by this reality.

Anonymous wrote:I am leaning towards paying for a good state college and then giving both my kids 200-300k each to help with down payments in swanky areas. I mean Ivy league is ultimately about affording a good lifestyle and that can be achieved without an Ivy league. My H and I both went to Public schools and universities, we live In McLean, make pretty much the same or more that my Ivy league neighbors. In my mind their Ivy league didn't achieve anything which my public university didn't (maybe bragging rights but I couldn't care less about that).

Also, a med degree from an okay school will be worth a LOT more than a liberal arts degree form HYP. Anybody else think like this or is this too simplistic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I said upthread, this thread is revealing a lot of people who grew up well-off enough to think they were entitled to the best school they could get into and are horrified to discover they have to be rich themselves to give their kids that same reality. Those of us who didn't grow up rich aren't shocked by this reality.

That sounds right.

I didn't grow up rich. I was definitely poor and went to a state school with $2,000 per year tuition. I was shocked at the current COA of these schools when we started serious looking into schools. Only rich people will be able to have generations attending Ivys. The poor kids who currently qualify for financial aid to attend basically free likely won't be able to afford to send their kid to the same school because of middle class wage stagnation and increasing tuition.

No, as illustrated by this thread, truly middle class parents do not have to pay much for their kids' Ivy educations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I said upthread, this thread is revealing a lot of people who grew up well-off enough to think they were entitled to the best school they could get into and are horrified to discover they have to be rich themselves to give their kids that same reality. Those of us who didn't grow up rich aren't shocked by this reality.

That sounds right.

I didn't grow up rich. I was definitely poor and went to a state school with $2,000 per year tuition. I was shocked at the current COA of these schools when we started serious looking into schools. Only rich people will be able to have generations attending Ivys. The poor kids who currently qualify for financial aid to attend basically free likely won't be able to afford to send their kid to the same school because of middle class wage stagnation and increasing tuition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it.

Another incredibly stupid and ignorant argument. Colleges lower prices for students with financial needs so they can get the students they WANT. It's not charitable.

The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation.

"the Ivys are getting a huge tax break" Yeah so is every non-profit, including non-ivy colleges, the Red Cross, the corner church, and your local gun club. Ridiculous and misleading to imply "The Ivys" are getting some special consideration.

You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families.

They are good enough for poor families. But why should poor kids go there when a better school wants them? (Oh, and PS, Einstein, state schools, especially directionals and such, are MOSTLY poor kids.)

There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their.

There isn't a "tax exemption for Ivys". WTF are you thinking?

If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

Yeah and I don't get free donuts, so no tax break for the Red Cross either! And I don't go to your church, so tax that MFer!

The difference is others think you CAN afford it. Who gets to decide if you do or not? Only you. No one is making you pay.

There is a huge difference between organizations that provide a luxury and those that provide for those in need like the Red Cross. Ivys fall into the former category. Again, no need for our tax dollars to support funding luxury items. And Ivys are tax exempt organizations, I didn't call the tax a specific "Ivy Tax Exemption," I merely stated there should be no tax exemptions for Ivys, meaning the should not be entitled to tax exempt status. And yes, I (as a taxpayer) am being made to indirectly pay for Ivys by the mere fact that our treasury is supplementing them by not charging taxes on their general income and their income and capital gains from their huge endowments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An education at $80,000 a year is a private luxury. Many public universities that charge way less have incredible research components. Education is not a private good, but education at $80,000 is a private good.

And how did you decide that was the number?

These universities have increased their tuition well beyond inflation, despite the benefits they receive from their tax exempt status. I think it's time to reassess whether they are providing benefits to society as a whole that make them worthy of their tax exempt status. On this thread it was pointed out that the COA at one university was about $8,000min 1979, adjustment for inflation that would be around $29,000 in today's dollars, but the COA now is actually $80,000. During that time they have stockpiled endowments in the billions, in no significant part due to being able to grow the endowments tax free. Why do we continue to provide tax exempt status so they can price gouge and amass huge endowments. Those are reasonable questions to ask, despite the visceral reaction to dismiss those questions.

Ahh, you're that guy. That's how.

Read earlier in the thread. There were links provided for tuition from that period. Then you adjust those numbers for inflation into today's dollars. Then you compare that to the actual COA for these institutions. Are you that guy who doesn't believe in math?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I said upthread, this thread is revealing a lot of people who grew up well-off enough to think they were entitled to the best school they could get into and are horrified to discover they have to be rich themselves to give their kids that same reality. Those of us who didn't grow up rich aren't shocked by this reality.

That sounds right.

Anonymous wrote:I am leaning towards paying for a good state college and then giving both my kids 200-300k each to help with down payments in swanky areas. I mean Ivy league is ultimately about affording a good lifestyle and that can be achieved without an Ivy league. My H and I both went to Public schools and universities, we live In McLean, make pretty much the same or more that my Ivy league neighbors. In my mind their Ivy league didn't achieve anything which my public university didn't (maybe bragging rights but I couldn't care less about that).

Also, a med degree from an okay school will be worth a LOT more than a liberal arts degree form HYP. Anybody else think like this or is this too simplistic?

Anonymous wrote:As I said upthread, this thread is revealing a lot of people who grew up well-off enough to think they were entitled to the best school they could get into and are horrified to discover they have to be rich themselves to give their kids that same reality. Those of us who didn't grow up rich aren't shocked by this reality.

Anonymous wrote:I am leaning towards paying for a good state college and then giving both my kids 200-300k each to help with down payments in swanky areas. I mean Ivy league is ultimately about affording a good lifestyle and that can be achieved without an Ivy league. My H and I both went to Public schools and universities, we live In McLean, make pretty much the same or more that my Ivy league neighbors. In my mind their Ivy league didn't achieve anything which my public university didn't (maybe bragging rights but I couldn't care less about that).

Also, a med degree from an okay school will be worth a LOT more than a liberal arts degree form HYP. Anybody else think like this or is this too simplistic?

Anonymous wrote:I am leaning towards paying for a good state college and then giving both my kids 200-300k each to help with down payments in swanky areas. I mean Ivy league is ultimately about affording a good lifestyle and that can be achieved without an Ivy league. My H and I both went to Public schools and universities, we live In McLean, make pretty much the same or more that my Ivy league neighbors. In my mind their Ivy league didn't achieve anything which my public university didn't (maybe bragging rights but I couldn't care less about that).

Also, a med degree from an okay school will be worth a LOT more than a liberal arts degree form HYP. Anybody else think like this or is this too simplistic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An education at $80,000 a year is a private luxury. Many public universities that charge way less have incredible research components. Education is not a private good, but education at $80,000 is a private good.

And how did you decide that was the number?

These universities have increased their tuition well beyond inflation, despite the benefits they receive from their tax exempt status. I think it's time to reassess whether they are providing benefits to society as a whole that make them worthy of their tax exempt status. On this thread it was pointed out that the COA at one university was about $8,000min 1979, adjustment for inflation that would be around $29,000 in today's dollars, but the COA now is actually $80,000. During that time they have stockpiled endowments in the billions, in no significant part due to being able to grow the endowments tax free. Why do we continue to provide tax exempt status so they can price gouge and amass huge endowments. Those are reasonable questions to ask, despite the visceral reaction to dismiss those questions.

Ahh, you're that guy. That's how.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is the fancy restaurant jacking up its prices to let some people eat for free, making it full price unattainable for this who otherwise might be able to afford it.

Another incredibly stupid and ignorant argument. Colleges lower prices for students with financial needs so they can get the students they WANT. It's not charitable.

The difference between the Ivys and the restaurant is that the Ivys are getting a huge tax break and are still increasing their tuition in amounts that way outpaces inflation.

"the Ivys are getting a huge tax break" Yeah so is every non-profit, including non-ivy colleges, the Red Cross, the corner church, and your local gun club. Ridiculous and misleading to imply "The Ivys" are getting some special consideration.

You're right, an Ivy education is not a necessity so maybe my tax dollars should not be supplementing tax breaks to provide select segments of society a free luxury. If as you say a state school is good enough for donut hole families, it's also good enough for poor families.

They are good enough for poor families. But why should poor kids go there when a better school wants them? (Oh, and PS, Einstein, state schools, especially directionals and such, are MOSTLY poor kids.)

There should be no tax exemption for Ivys, and the rich can fully fund the schools so their kids can go their.

There isn't a "tax exemption for Ivys". WTF are you thinking?

If my tax dollars aren't supplementing luxuries for others, then the fact that I can't afford the luxury doesn't offend me.

Yeah and I don't get free donuts, so no tax break for the Red Cross either! And I don't go to your church, so tax that MFer!

The difference is others think you CAN afford it. Who gets to decide if you do or not? Only you. No one is making you pay.

There is a huge difference between organizations that provide a luxury and those that provide for those in need like the Red Cross. Ivys fall into the former category. Again, no need for our tax dollars to support funding luxury items. And Ivys are tax exempt organizations, I didn't call the tax a specific "Ivy Tax Exemption," I merely stated there should be no tax exemptions for Ivys, meaning the should not be entitled to tax exempt status. And yes, I (as a taxpayer) am being made to indirectly pay for Ivys by the mere fact that our treasury is supplementing them by not charging taxes on their general income and their income and capital gains from their huge endowments.

Education is a luxury [b]item?
[/b]
Only the Ivy colleges should be taxed?

You ignore the points about gun and country clubs? How do those provide for people in need?

This is where I get off the bus. You are a guy with some kind of anti-ivy agenda and I don't want to understand why. Good luck to you.

Yes an Ivy education is a luxury that no one is entitled to at $80,000 per year and increasing--as is so often pointed out to anyone on this board who says they can't afford it. You can't have it both ways. I'm not anti-Ivy, I'm anti the exponentially increasing cost of tuition at these institutions. Why isn't some portion of their partially taxpayer funded (through tax free growth) endowments being used to hold costs down. I'm anti greed.