Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god— my niece paid $100k freshmen year to attend Boston College.

It’s not very different from Georgetown or any of the SLACs.

My child has been accepted to some very adjective universities (5-6%%) acceptance rate—but paying $70k more per year over the very good VA public university seems ludicrous.

This is the point we have come to in higher education. A $400k undergrad degree?

Yep, we are at this same realization. We've saved a lot and thought it would be enough. It's not. We are foregoing all of those big, fancy schools as it does not make sense. Once out of grad school it will not matter that DC went to Bridgewater vs. Boston College. Sorry, it won't.

These prices are unsustainable and it's absurd we accept them as "normal" now.

Can't you just get loan forgiveness on the backend? Is anyone actually paying these rates?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been through this process, and saved quite a bit towards college, we still chose public school as do many people in our financial situation. The biggest problem with the belief that "donut reality" means being shut out, is letting rich people convince you that expensive is better. Despite what US news claims, in reality, a kid can have the fabulous life and a quality education and not deplete their parents of every cent they saved, plus take on debt and undue stress, for an undergrad degree.

And they should stop reading this forum and the private school forum immediately .

So many prestige strivers. We had kids get into top 10 schools, but with no aid and enough in 529 to fully cover in-state tuition. They chose the in-state option.

Frankly, the tables are turning. More and more high stat UMC families are no longer paying for private/ivies. The top in-state schools are getting stronger and stronger as a result. Add in the fact that many top employers have stated that they would rather have a top state college kid than many of the Ivies and you really are going to see a shift.

The high cost of tuition has reached a tipping point. It seems $85-90k is it. It will be six-figures a year for privates by the time a Freshmen makes it to Senior year.

Now you only have the poor and the uber rich at Ivies which is an awful dynamic, but mirrors the US.

And it's crazy. We drive only Hondas. We have one that is a 2006, in addition to a 2020. We aren't wearing fancy clothes or traveling to Europe. Travel sports are the biggest expense.

Yeah, middle class kids aren't doing "Travel sports". That is typically $5-10K+ per year. So see, you could have easily saved $5-10K/year for college, you chose not to. Most rec sports do not cost more than $500/year.

beg to differ. MANY middle class kids are doing travel sports. they shouldn't be, but they are.

Then their parents shouldn't complain about finances. Travel sports is a "luxury" not a requirement. It's not fiscally smart to do travel sports if it prevents you from saving for college or retirement. Your kid can still play sports for $400-500 for the year (or less).

Do you really think 7 years of basketball at $700 a year is the difference between an 80k a year SLAC and a 40k a year public?

There is a group on the donut hole threads that always join in and shame people for not saving enough for their kids’ college. They “claim” that even if you have special needs kids and parents to support and other specific high expenses, you should still somehow have been able to sacrifice enough to fully fund college for multiple kids on $150k per year.

First, I question the math, second at $150k hhi they will get significant aid so their point is moot.

But the real point missing is opportunity cost. What alot iof us are trying to say is just what are you sacrificing to get to that savings?? For us, it would be trips to see their grandparents far away. It would also be funding our retirement adequately. And what are the other financial tradeoffs you are making by “investing” an extra $50 to $60k per year in a private school vs a starter home or roth for your kid?

It makes more sense to save enough for an instate price and then by some miracle if we have extra, it be invested for their future. No way a private vs public degree earning premium will outpace the stock market or real estate.

Anonymous wrote:I'm worried about affording those very good public schools, let alone the private ones!!!

Right? OOS public schools aren't cheap. Michigan is very near the cost of an Ivy, for example. Not everyone has in-state UVA or W&M as an option.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been through this process, and saved quite a bit towards college, we still chose public school as do many people in our financial situation. The biggest problem with the belief that "donut reality" means being shut out, is letting rich people convince you that expensive is better. Despite what US news claims, in reality, a kid can have the fabulous life and a quality education and not deplete their parents of every cent they saved, plus take on debt and undue stress, for an undergrad degree.

And they should stop reading this forum and the private school forum immediately .

So many prestige strivers. We had kids get into top 10 schools, but with no aid and enough in 529 to fully cover in-state tuition. They chose the in-state option.

Frankly, the tables are turning. More and more high stat UMC families are no longer paying for private/ivies. The top in-state schools are getting stronger and stronger as a result. Add in the fact that many top employers have stated that they would rather have a top state college kid than many of the Ivies and you really are going to see a shift.

The high cost of tuition has reached a tipping point. It seems $85-90k is it. It will be six-figures a year for privates by the time a Freshmen makes it to Senior year.

Now you only have the poor and the uber rich at Ivies which is an awful dynamic, but mirrors the US.

And it's crazy. We drive only Hondas. We have one that is a 2006, in addition to a 2020. We aren't wearing fancy clothes or traveling to Europe. Travel sports are the biggest expense.

Yeah, middle class kids aren't doing "Travel sports". That is typically $5-10K+ per year. So see, you could have easily saved $5-10K/year for college, you chose not to. Most rec sports do not cost more than $500/year.

beg to differ. MANY middle class kids are doing travel sports. they shouldn't be, but they are.

Then their parents shouldn't complain about finances. Travel sports is a "luxury" not a requirement. It's not fiscally smart to do travel sports if it prevents you from saving for college or retirement. Your kid can still play sports for $400-500 for the year (or less).

Real middle class cannot afford travel teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too much whining. There are also cars that cost $400,000. If you don’t want to pay that, there are reliable options that are a fraction of that. Same with colleges.

Community colleges, GI Bill, colleges away from the coasts, graduate in 3 years etc. Out-of-state merit aid at large public universities in unglamorous states can be amazing even if kid isn’t brilliant.

Your analogy is stupid. People do not need a luxury vehicle. Education is necessary. And when you have certain families cut out of the "luxury" market, while subsidizing others who will get to go to those institutions for free or low cost, that is the sign of a problem. It should not be this way for anyone.

That’s capitalism. What you’re asking for is a socialist program. States are getting much better about subsidizing or paying for trade degrees that will qualify graduates for a career. But private schools can accept the top students regardless of their ability to pay. No one is forced to go to these schools.

No college is taking a student because he is low income. He’s accepted to the college based on his hard work and given aid to attend. He has nothing to do with your child not being accepted or not being offered any scholarships.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having been through this process, and saved quite a bit towards college, we still chose public school as do many people in our financial situation. The biggest problem with the belief that "donut reality" means being shut out, is letting rich people convince you that expensive is better. Despite what US news claims, in reality, a kid can have the fabulous life and a quality education and not deplete their parents of every cent they saved, plus take on debt and undue stress, for an undergrad degree.

And they should stop reading this forum and the private school forum immediately .

So many prestige strivers. We had kids get into top 10 schools, but with no aid and enough in 529 to fully cover in-state tuition. They chose the in-state option.

Frankly, the tables are turning. More and more high stat UMC families are no longer paying for private/ivies. The top in-state schools are getting stronger and stronger as a result. Add in the fact that many top employers have stated that they would rather have a top state college kid than many of the Ivies and you really are going to see a shift.

The high cost of tuition has reached a tipping point. It seems $85-90k is it. It will be six-figures a year for privates by the time a Freshmen makes it to Senior year.

Now you only have the poor and the uber rich at Ivies which is an awful dynamic, but mirrors the US.

And it's crazy. We drive only Hondas. We have one that is a 2006, in addition to a 2020. We aren't wearing fancy clothes or traveling to Europe. Travel sports are the biggest expense.

Yeah, middle class kids aren't doing "Travel sports". That is typically $5-10K+ per year. So see, you could have easily saved $5-10K/year for college, you chose not to. Most rec sports do not cost more than $500/year.

beg to differ. MANY middle class kids are doing travel sports. they shouldn't be, but they are.

Then their parents shouldn't complain about finances. Travel sports is a "luxury" not a requirement. It's not fiscally smart to do travel sports if it prevents you from saving for college or retirement. Your kid can still play sports for $400-500 for the year (or less).

Anonymous wrote:$13k for tuition/year is a lot of money for a lot of people. Maybe not the posters on this thread, but still, that’s more than $1k/month just to pay tuition. Not including transport, books, etc.

What is the median income in the US?

I think I did the math not long ago on if my child were just to pay tuition to GMU (we live in Ffx county) and live at home, that is ~$60k. Sure, it could be slightly cheaper to do 2 years in community college, but for most people, that truly is a LOT of money. This board talks like that’s no big deal. It is.

FYI---most kids can earn $8-10K in a year in VA by working summers, breaks and PT (10 hours) during the school year. So if you live at home, the federal loan of $5.5K yearly and the kid working could pay for college almost completely. So the parents just need to contribute "letting kid live at home" and "transportation to/from school daily". There are ways to do college without much parental help and much debt

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is useless without laying out how much total income family has, going back/forward 10 years of more.

There's no reason to expect private college should be easily affordable from current income. It's a 4 years in a lifetime experience.

As your income goes up, you save vs. changing your lifestyle to go with the new income increase. See how that works.

Not everyone has a huge salary increase. So many assumptions in this thread.

But most people claiming "donut hole" did have that increase at some point. They didn't start at $200-250K at age 22. So they made a choice to NOT save most of that increase along the way. Some people made the choice to save and can afford $80K/year. Not saying it's the smart way to spend your money---that is your call. But most donut hole families did have an option to save as their salary increased and chose not to do so. That choice means their kid needs to find schools that they can afford--they are not entitled to elite 80K universities just because they think so

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UMC begrudging the MC/poor. MC telling the UMC to suck it up. Meanwhile, no one talking about the absurd increase of getting a college education. Lack of funding for higher education, predatory loans, bloated admin costs while departments keep getting cut left and right. But yeah let’s fight each other.

Actually it's UMC bemoaning the absurd increase of getting a college education, the lack of funding for higher education, predatory loans, bloated admin costs, and the cutting of departments left and right.

At least, that's what my complaint relates to.

One can get a college education for a pretty low cost by making use of community colleges or ROTC scholarship. You’ve just decided you don’t like the most affordable options.

But I want my child to go to an elite college that others cannot go to, so that my child can be rich.

Is that too much to ask?

Yes it is. Your thought process is extremely flawed. That you think the only way to succeed/be rich is to attend an elite college. Go look at C suites at 100s of companies. majority went to "non-elite universities". You get there by hard work and dedication, not by where you went to school. Plenty of people "qualified for elite universities" don't attend and go to their State U/private school offering merit because it's affordable. They succeed in life because of their work ethic and drive and what they do at college gets them started---not because of where they attended. Things don't just magically drop into your lap because you attend Harvard

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There used to be a belief that higher education was a societal goods that we all had a vested interest in supporting. We believed in social mobility and having an educated populace that could compete with any nation in the world. It is why there was a GI bill, Pell Grants, etc.

You can save a lot, but tuition has been going up at a rate much greater than average income. It is more out of reach than it used to be. So people are understandably frustrated. They can’t keep up and they’ve seen higher ed shift from a common good to a luxury good.

Some of us still believe this and that is why the comparison of a degree to a BMW or a Honda is so wrong.

You believe you are entitled to "higher education at an elite college" or just higher education. I believe in the 2nd. But not the first. Nobody is entitled to an elite education. Smart people know that you can go far in life, you just need AN education. You can get that at your state U or a private U, what you do while attending matters much much much more than where you go. So yes, I believe everyone should be able to get a college degree, if they want. And that is possible and affordable for most. It just might not be Harvard. Fact is you most likely are not getting into Harvard anyhow, so why the concerns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A universal cutoff number for need based aid is ridiculous when it does not take into account cost of living. $150k in Oklahoma is much different than San Fran or DC.

The latest findings:

Here's a look how much income a family of four needs to live comfortably in the 20 most expensive U.S. cities: 
San Francisco: $339,123
San Jose, California: $334,547
Boston: $319,738
Arlington, Virginia: $318,573
New York City: $318,406
Oakland, California: $316,243
Urban Honolulu, Hawaii: $299,520
Irvine, California: $291,450
Santa Ana, California: $291,450
Portland, Oregon: $289,786
San Diego: $289,453
Chula Vista, California: $289,453
Newark, New Jersey: $285,043
Jersey City, New Jersey: $285,043
Seattle: $283,712
Aurora, Colorado: $280,467
Long Beach, California: $280,218
Anaheim, California: $280,218
Los Angeles: $276,557
Washington, D.C.: $275,642

We live very comfortably on $150 or less.

You are a statistical anomaly. Likely no issues supporting other family members, or hardships, etc

No they are not. We do too. And we're inside the beltway. It can be done!

And you bought your house when?

2015

Same poster. Got a house with great features that didn't show well. Before that lived on a very main road.
Refi'd at 2% during pandemic, so payments are low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A universal cutoff number for need based aid is ridiculous when it does not take into account cost of living. $150k in Oklahoma is much different than San Fran or DC.

The latest findings:

Here's a look how much income a family of four needs to live comfortably in the 20 most expensive U.S. cities: 
San Francisco: $339,123
San Jose, California: $334,547
Boston: $319,738
Arlington, Virginia: $318,573
New York City: $318,406
Oakland, California: $316,243
Urban Honolulu, Hawaii: $299,520
Irvine, California: $291,450
Santa Ana, California: $291,450
Portland, Oregon: $289,786
San Diego: $289,453
Chula Vista, California: $289,453
Newark, New Jersey: $285,043
Jersey City, New Jersey: $285,043
Seattle: $283,712
Aurora, Colorado: $280,467
Long Beach, California: $280,218
Anaheim, California: $280,218
Los Angeles: $276,557
Washington, D.C.: $275,642

We live very comfortably on $150 or less.

You are a statistical anomaly. Likely no issues supporting other family members, or hardships, etc

No they are not. We do too. And we're inside the beltway. It can be done!

And you bought your house when?

2015

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A universal cutoff number for need based aid is ridiculous when it does not take into account cost of living. $150k in Oklahoma is much different than San Fran or DC.

The latest findings:

Here's a look how much income a family of four needs to live comfortably in the 20 most expensive U.S. cities: 
San Francisco: $339,123
San Jose, California: $334,547
Boston: $319,738
Arlington, Virginia: $318,573
New York City: $318,406
Oakland, California: $316,243
Urban Honolulu, Hawaii: $299,520
Irvine, California: $291,450
Santa Ana, California: $291,450
Portland, Oregon: $289,786
San Diego: $289,453
Chula Vista, California: $289,453
Newark, New Jersey: $285,043
Jersey City, New Jersey: $285,043
Seattle: $283,712
Aurora, Colorado: $280,467
Long Beach, California: $280,218
Anaheim, California: $280,218
Los Angeles: $276,557
Washington, D.C.: $275,642

We live very comfortably on $150 or less.

You are a statistical anomaly. Likely no issues supporting other family members, or hardships, etc

No they are not. We do too. And we're inside the beltway. It can be done!

And you bought your house when?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A universal cutoff number for need based aid is ridiculous when it does not take into account cost of living. $150k in Oklahoma is much different than San Fran or DC.

The latest findings:

Here's a look how much income a family of four needs to live comfortably in the 20 most expensive U.S. cities: 
San Francisco: $339,123
San Jose, California: $334,547
Boston: $319,738
Arlington, Virginia: $318,573
New York City: $318,406
Oakland, California: $316,243
Urban Honolulu, Hawaii: $299,520
Irvine, California: $291,450
Santa Ana, California: $291,450
Portland, Oregon: $289,786
San Diego: $289,453
Chula Vista, California: $289,453
Newark, New Jersey: $285,043
Jersey City, New Jersey: $285,043
Seattle: $283,712
Aurora, Colorado: $280,467
Long Beach, California: $280,218
Anaheim, California: $280,218
Los Angeles: $276,557
Washington, D.C.: $275,642

We live very comfortably on $150 or less.

You are a statistical anomaly. Likely no issues supporting other family members, or hardships, etc

No they are not. We do too. And we're inside the beltway. It can be done!