Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

I don't know why we care about the extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority a generation ago.

I mean, what do they bring to the table that first gen or just plain middle class don't? Are you saying the peer group was stronger? I doubt that. Classroom discussions more productive? I doubt that? Opportunities to learn and grow in a residential setting limited? I really doubt that.

I submit that Princeton has FU money and now, finally, can accept the kids they want.

There are a hundred schools happy to take your UMC kid.

Op here, speaking from experience, yes I think the kids who had “privileged” upbringings in the sense of parents being very dedicated to their development from day one and exceptional schools are in a sense the best and the brightest. But schools with FU money (who are they saying FU to btw, the very people who built the schools into what they are now?) are deliberately viewing this form of “privilege” as a negative variable when they make admissions decisions. It’s quite counterintuitive. They specifically don’t want kids who are coming to them having been extremely nurtured and well prepared to excel academically. It’s like a Major League Baseball team avoiding the best high school programs when they scout players and just looking for the worst. My contention is, if your selection process entails avoiding the circumstances that produce exceptional kids, you will probably have fewer exceptional kids.

Princeton has a large percentage of Asian kids compared to the overall percentage of Asian students in the country. Do you really think those kids and many of their peers have not been “extremely nurtured and well prepared to excel academically”?

I get that it’s a very tough admit for an unhooked UMC suburban white kid compared to the 80s or 90s, but those kids will have plenty of other options and it’s hard to say they are objectively much stronger than the kids who may get admitted with slightly lower test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean that means 33% of the student body is still paying over $80,000 a year. I’d say in my friend group only 20% of families could afford to send their kids to a Princeton priced school full pay and everyone went to college/most to grad school.

What percentage of that 33% is extremely wealthy? I bet it's extremely high.

This kind of barbell demographics (poor and super rich) make for some really weird social dynamics. My kids attend a DC private and it's a microcosm of this: you have financial aid kids and extremely wealthy kids and very, very few in between. Almost no one is the child of two feds or a doctor and a teacher. They'e either the kid of a single parent or a CEO. And as much as the high school wishes the two groups would mix, they rarely become more than superficial friends.

There are a ton of doctors with kids at private schools. There are also a number of kids with teacher parents, nearly all of whom work at a private school.

You are missing my point. When I said doctor/teacher family I was thinking pediatrician or family medicine. I was equating this family with a family of two feds: decent salaries but not extremely wealthy.

My point again is, my kids attend a DC private. The school has the financial aid kids and the unmistakably rich (children of VIPs and CEOs) and very, very, very who are in between. My family is in between (we're 2 feds) and there are about 2 others like us in my kids' entire grade. It's not an ideal social dynamic. It gets weird and the two groups don't really mix at any sort of deep level.

Princeton is a lot bigger pond than your private, which is to say there is a much wider spectrum of families economically. It’s been that way for decades. There are definitely middle class kids there.

Anonymous wrote:Hopkins too.

They are going to move down the ranks in future years, just like what is happening at Thomas Jefferson HS.

Unlike Hopkins, Princeton, looks more like America in terms of racial and ethnic representation based on their CDS https://registrar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf136/files/documents/CDS_2022-2023.pdf with the exception that whites are underrepresented and Asians are over represented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean that means 33% of the student body is still paying over $80,000 a year. I’d say in my friend group only 20% of families could afford to send their kids to a Princeton priced school full pay and everyone went to college/most to grad school.

What percentage of that 33% is extremely wealthy? I bet it's extremely high.

This kind of barbell demographics (poor and super rich) make for some really weird social dynamics. My kids attend a DC private and it's a microcosm of this: you have financial aid kids and extremely wealthy kids and very, very few in between. Almost no one is the child of two feds or a doctor and a teacher. They'e either the kid of a single parent or a CEO. And as much as the high school wishes the two groups would mix, they rarely become more than superficial friends.

This is obviously not the Princeton situation with incomes over $300k being part of the 67% getting aid — they aren’t a big lump that can be called “poor.” It seems that the UMC DCUM crowd is torn between two complaint narratives: that they are donut-hole families who can’t afford Princeton and simultaneously (unhooked) white-privilege families who Princeton’s admissions department is determined to reject. Or maybe they embrace both narratives.

I went to Princeton a long time ago, and I can tell you that the overwhelming bulk of the students came from families with incomes (adjusted for average wage inflation from then to now) that would put them into the financial aid bucket these days. So the fact that 67% get aid does not mean that Princeton is enrolling a lower % of their historical clientele (from an income standpoint). What’s maybe going on is that the wealth of the top 1% has exploded and that you folks on the bottom half of that 1% are feeling simultaneously unwanted and strapped for cash.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopkins too.

They are going to move down the ranks in future years, just like what is happening at Thomas Jefferson HS.

Hardly, their entering class stats keep increasing while pell grant recipients increase.

Well, their GPAs keep increasing but that is grade inflation. In a few years the average GPA in America will be a 5.0.
Most of these kids aren't submitting test scores.

Over 80% submit scores according to the CDS. Where are you getting this or are you just making this up because of your bitterness?

I went to HYP 25 years ago and have relatives at one now. It’s not at all clear why you think my generation was any better. Yes we had more privileged kids and swaths of the classes from fancy schools like Exeter. Were those kids impressive? Coddled and prepared for sure but impressive?

There is still a problem in affordability for the truly middle class and that’s real. But if s it better than in my years? For sure

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

PRINCETON is not using its endowment to pay for Pell Grants. The feds pay for that. Hence, we the taxpayers are paying for those kids to go to Princeton, not Princeton

The DCUM bubble is amazing. Pell Grants average less than $4,500 and max out at less than $7,000. Identifying the number of students that receive Pell Grants is just a means of quantifying the percentage of low income students. Princeton is definitely paying the bulk of the cost.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

It would make sense that if you take away the obstacle of not having the money to attend then the University has a better chance of getting the best of the best. What’s the problem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

I don't know why we care about the extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority a generation ago.

I mean, what do they bring to the table that first gen or just plain middle class don't? Are you saying the peer group was stronger? I doubt that. Classroom discussions more productive? I doubt that? Opportunities to learn and grow in a residential setting limited? I really doubt that.

I submit that Princeton has FU money and now, finally, can accept the kids they want.

There are a hundred schools happy to take your UMC kid.

Op here, speaking from experience, yes I think the kids who had “privileged” upbringings in the sense of parents being very dedicated to their development from day one and exceptional schools are in a sense the best and the brightest. But schools with FU money (who are they saying FU to btw, the very people who built the schools into what they are now?) are deliberately viewing this form of “privilege” as a negative variable when they make admissions decisions. It’s quite counterintuitive. They specifically don’t want kids who are coming to them having been extremely nurtured and well prepared to excel academically. It’s like a Major League Baseball team avoiding the best high school programs when they scout players and just looking for the worst. My contention is, if your selection process entails avoiding the circumstances that produce exceptional kids, you will probably have fewer exceptional kids.

What's more impressive? A poor kid that overcomes odds to score 1580 on their SAT with a 4.0 and national awards or an UMC tutored from elementary school with test prep that scores a 1600 with personal college counseling that hand holds their ECs.

How do we define best and brightest here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean that means 33% of the student body is still paying over $80,000 a year. I’d say in my friend group only 20% of families could afford to send their kids to a Princeton priced school full pay and everyone went to college/most to grad school.

What percentage of that 33% is extremely wealthy? I bet it's extremely high.

This kind of barbell demographics (poor and super rich) make for some really weird social dynamics. My kids attend a DC private and it's a microcosm of this: you have financial aid kids and extremely wealthy kids and very, very few in between. Almost no one is the child of two feds or a doctor and a teacher. They'e either the kid of a single parent or a CEO. And as much as the high school wishes the two groups would mix, they rarely become more than superficial friends.

There are a ton of doctors with kids at private schools. There are also a number of kids with teacher parents, nearly all of whom work at a private school.

You are missing my point. When I said doctor/teacher family I was thinking pediatrician or family medicine. I was equating this family with a family of two feds: decent salaries but not extremely wealthy.

My point again is, my kids attend a DC private. The school has the financial aid kids and the unmistakably rich (children of VIPs and CEOs) and very, very, very who are in between. My family is in between (we're 2 feds) and there are about 2 others like us in my kids' entire grade. It's not an ideal social dynamic. It gets weird and the two groups don't really mix at any sort of deep level.

I’m not missing the point, your argument is flawed. Most privates have vey few kids who are on full scholarship. Most aid goes to upper middle class families like yours.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

PRINCETON is not using its endowment to pay for Pell Grants. The feds pay for that. Hence, we the taxpayers are paying for those kids to go to Princeton, not Princeton

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

I don't know why we care about the extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority a generation ago.

I mean, what do they bring to the table that first gen or just plain middle class don't? Are you saying the peer group was stronger? I doubt that. Classroom discussions more productive? I doubt that? Opportunities to learn and grow in a residential setting limited? I really doubt that.

I submit that Princeton has FU money and now, finally, can accept the kids they want.

There are a hundred schools happy to take your UMC kid.

Op here, speaking from experience, yes I think the kids who had “privileged” upbringings in the sense of parents being very dedicated to their development from day one and exceptional schools are in a sense the best and the brightest. But schools with FU money (who are they saying FU to btw, the very people who built the schools into what they are now?) are deliberately viewing this form of “privilege” as a negative variable when they make admissions decisions. It’s quite counterintuitive. They specifically don’t want kids who are coming to them having been extremely nurtured and well prepared to excel academically. It’s like a Major League Baseball team avoiding the best high school programs when they scout players and just looking for the worst. My contention is, if your selection process entails avoiding the circumstances that produce exceptional kids, you will probably have fewer exceptional kids.

other parents love their kids too. they're also out there every weekend on the soccer fields and in the library.

umc kids in the 1990s didn't build Princeton. that's laughable.

not looking for any sympathy. we made peace with this long ago.

inheritances hitting in these years are not unusual. I spoke to the FA office and said, "this is our retirement .. I'm not sure why you only are looking at tax-sheltered retirement. money is money" and the FA office actually said they've been looking into this as well. And then mentioned a lottery winner who literally had no other assets .. no home ownership, literally didn't even have a 401k, and having a windfall that wasn't sheltered knocked them out of FA.. when other people have many millions in retirement and a couple million in a home and receive aid.

moving to a total asset base would be the workaround. interesting iMO.

also, at our income, you can take money out of roth for college w/o penalties. and some schools actually do think your home equity is on the table (looking at you, Georgetown)

We're fine. I'm not looking for sympathy. I dont' have any special feelings about any of these schools. plenty of good ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

I don't know why we care about the extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority a generation ago.

I mean, what do they bring to the table that first gen or just plain middle class don't? Are you saying the peer group was stronger? I doubt that. Classroom discussions more productive? I doubt that? Opportunities to learn and grow in a residential setting limited? I really doubt that.

I submit that Princeton has FU money and now, finally, can accept the kids they want.

There are a hundred schools happy to take your UMC kid.

Op here, speaking from experience, yes I think the kids who had “privileged” upbringings in the sense of parents being very dedicated to their development from day one and exceptional schools are in a sense the best and the brightest. But schools with FU money (who are they saying FU to btw, the very people who built the schools into what they are now?) are deliberately viewing this form of “privilege” as a negative variable when they make admissions decisions. It’s quite counterintuitive. They specifically don’t want kids who are coming to them having been extremely nurtured and well prepared to excel academically. It’s like a Major League Baseball team avoiding the best high school programs when they scout players and just looking for the worst. My contention is, if your selection process entails avoiding the circumstances that produce exceptional kids, you will probably have fewer exceptional kids.

Anonymous wrote:"The University’s new financial aid model means that most families with incomes up to $100,000 a year now pay nothing for their student to attend Princeton, and many families living in the U.S. with incomes up to and even beyond $300,000 will receive grant aid, including those at higher income levels with multiple children in college."

This is a bit deceiving. Our HHI is 180 and we got nothing. All 4 grandparents are dead and we got about 1mm in inheritance that we can't shift to retirement bcs our income isn't high. We have about 500k in retirement. We own a 1100 sq ft apartment in nyc. We have three kids.

So no, we can't pay basically 20% of our total net assets (home, retirement, savings) for one kids tuition. Our kids don't overlap either so it would happen again.

They should look at total assets. People with 1.5 in retirement get FA. but 500k in retirement and 1mm outside, nope.

I know it is genuinely frustrating but you are not going to get a lot of sympathy here (in case you are new). Assets tend to impact financial aid calculations
You must understand the reasoning for not forcing parents to dip into retirement (often with penalties) or their primary home. I acknowledge your situation is tough because the timing of the inheritances clearly hurts you (otherwise, you'd qualify for some help not to mention you'd clearly rather have the people and not the $$ anyway).