Anonymous
03/18/2023 11:59
Subject: Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Borrowing from another thread.
This is exemplifies what is happening. You’ve got a premier student who couldn’t apply RD to dream school for financial reasons, parents weren’t comfortable with price tag anyway, now most likely headed to state flagship. A top performing UMC kid iced out of top private college due to cost.
“She didn’t ED to keep her options open. That was mostly because of DH & me, due to the cost of college and wanting to see any scholarship options available. She will most likely wind up at our state flagship on a full tuition scholarship, so that’s nothing to sneeze at and we’re grateful she has that option. Still, we probably would have made it work for Swat. DD wanted to leave our area for college to experience a different part of the country.”
This is exemplifies what is happening. You’ve got a premier student who couldn’t apply RD to dream school for financial reasons, parents weren’t comfortable with price tag anyway, now most likely headed to state flagship. A top performing UMC kid iced out of top private college due to cost.
“She didn’t ED to keep her options open. That was mostly because of DH & me, due to the cost of college and wanting to see any scholarship options available. She will most likely wind up at our state flagship on a full tuition scholarship, so that’s nothing to sneeze at and we’re grateful she has that option. Still, we probably would have made it work for Swat. DD wanted to leave our area for college to experience a different part of the country.”
Anonymous
03/18/2023 11:55
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not clear what OP wants. For it to be free for everyone? For it to be like private k-12 where there are no truly poor students?
For it to be free up to her personal income level. But no higher.
OP: Really I was just making a point. We wouldn't qualify for aid under any scenario, assets way too high.
The core issue is that the retail price tag has just gotten soooooo high. Much higher than it was on a relative basis a generation ago.
The practical effect of this is that the only students who can really attend are the ones who qualify for a ton of aid (because they come from very modest backgrounds) or students who come from very affluent backgrounds where full price is not an issue. Sure, there are some UMC donut hole families who choose to take out tons of loans to make it happen, but many probably choose a cheaper option.
OP. Can you accept your premise might be wrong?
In real data, top schools are not being populated by the under $150K and the above $600K HHI set. People have pointed you to the fact that 45% of the class comes from families who make between that amount. 300K families are not underrepresented at Harvard.
45%, if that number is right, is less thank half.
Families who range between $150K and $300K are 19% of the population. They are represented in the Columbia population at 45%. Does that seem low to you? What percentage of the student body do you think should be made up of those kids in your opinion?
https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/affordability
49 pct of Columbia receives $64k in average aid. Half the school is getting substantial financial aid. Other schools have higher rates up to 65 pct.
You do understand that average aid can be $64K but that does not mean that half the school is getting “substantial aid”, right? We are talking mean not median here.
But at any rate, this is a good number to use to further understand Columbia’s student body. Let’s say you get no financial aid above $200K. This means that 51% of the Columbia student body has family that makes over $200k. We also know that the 1 percenters are at 14% (which I agree is absurd). That leaves 38% of Columbia’s student body with families who make between $200k and $600K. Their percentage in society at large? Something like 11%. So these donut hole families are certainly not getting cut out of Columbia. In fact they are over-represented compared to their share of the US population by a factor of 3.5-ish. The UMC is well represented. The schools know this. Which is why they prioritize aid to lower income students. You might not “see” this in your friend circle but it is what the data shows.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/
Just shows that "yes donut hole families have/can find a way to save and/or cashflow $80K/year"
They are certainly NOT underrepresented at Columbia. I suspect this is similar at most T25 schools.
Anonymous
03/18/2023 08:59
Subject: Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:I am divorced with a part time job at a school district and I technically qualify for public assistance. None of it was planned (bad divorce etc) but considering the aid my kid can get maybe I’ll just keep it the way it is. The kid lives with me and is on my taxes.
Definitely. And make sure DC writes essays about the hardship. Apply to need blind schools
Anonymous
03/18/2023 08:58
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not clear what OP wants. For it to be free for everyone? For it to be like private k-12 where there are no truly poor students?
For it to be free up to her personal income level. But no higher.
OP: Really I was just making a point. We wouldn't qualify for aid under any scenario, assets way too high.
The core issue is that the retail price tag has just gotten soooooo high. Much higher than it was on a relative basis a generation ago.
The practical effect of this is that the only students who can really attend are the ones who qualify for a ton of aid (because they come from very modest backgrounds) or students who come from very affluent backgrounds where full price is not an issue. Sure, there are some UMC donut hole families who choose to take out tons of loans to make it happen, but many probably choose a cheaper option.
OP. Can you accept your premise might be wrong?
In real data, top schools are not being populated by the under $150K and the above $600K HHI set. People have pointed you to the fact that 45% of the class comes from families who make between that amount. 300K families are not underrepresented at Harvard.
45%, if that number is right, is less thank half.
Families who range between $150K and $300K are 19% of the population. They are represented in the Columbia population at 45%. Does that seem low to you? What percentage of the student body do you think should be made up of those kids in your opinion?
https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/affordability
49 pct of Columbia receives $64k in average aid. Half the school is getting substantial financial aid. Other schools have higher rates up to 65 pct.
You do understand that average aid can be $64K but that does not mean that half the school is getting “substantial aid”, right? We are talking mean not median here.
But at any rate, this is a good number to use to further understand Columbia’s student body. Let’s say you get no financial aid above $200K. This means that 51% of the Columbia student body has family that makes over $200k. We also know that the 1 percenters are at 14% (which I agree is absurd). That leaves 38% of Columbia’s student body with families who make between $200k and $600K. Their percentage in society at large? Something like 11%. So these donut hole families are certainly not getting cut out of Columbia. In fact they are over-represented compared to their share of the US population by a factor of 3.5-ish. The UMC is well represented. The schools know this. Which is why they prioritize aid to lower income students. You might not “see” this in your friend circle but it is what the data shows.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/
There is a big difference between 200k and 600k, both in terms of the number of families at those income levels (many many more 200k families out there than 600k) and the ability to afford 80k/yr after taxes mortgage etc. The donut hole is really 200-300. You don’t qualify for aid and you can’t afford it.
Anonymous
03/18/2023 00:38
Subject: Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
I am divorced with a part time job at a school district and I technically qualify for public assistance. None of it was planned (bad divorce etc) but considering the aid my kid can get maybe I’ll just keep it the way it is. The kid lives with me and is on my taxes.
Anonymous
03/17/2023 23:57
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Today’s socioeconomic dynamic at elite universities is working as hoped. My niece and a good friends daughter - both highly privileged - are dating (or married) to first gen immigrants of humble means ( full scholarship). These alliances are helpful for all of society and will become more and more common n various iterations. Elite universities know what they are doing - getting rid of frats and social clubs shuts off elite exclusion and encourages a wide range of engagements:
Anonymous
03/17/2023 23:42
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not clear what OP wants. For it to be free for everyone? For it to be like private k-12 where there are no truly poor students?
For it to be free up to her personal income level. But no higher.
OP: Really I was just making a point. We wouldn't qualify for aid under any scenario, assets way too high.
The core issue is that the retail price tag has just gotten soooooo high. Much higher than it was on a relative basis a generation ago.
The practical effect of this is that the only students who can really attend are the ones who qualify for a ton of aid (because they come from very modest backgrounds) or students who come from very affluent backgrounds where full price is not an issue. Sure, there are some UMC donut hole families who choose to take out tons of loans to make it happen, but many probably choose a cheaper option.
OP. Can you accept your premise might be wrong?
In real data, top schools are not being populated by the under $150K and the above $600K HHI set. People have pointed you to the fact that 45% of the class comes from families who make between that amount. 300K families are not underrepresented at Harvard.
45%, if that number is right, is less thank half.
Families who range between $150K and $300K are 19% of the population. They are represented in the Columbia population at 45%. Does that seem low to you? What percentage of the student body do you think should be made up of those kids in your opinion?
https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/affordability
49 pct of Columbia receives $64k in average aid. Half the school is getting substantial financial aid. Other schools have higher rates up to 65 pct.
You do understand that average aid can be $64K but that does not mean that half the school is getting “substantial aid”, right? We are talking mean not median here.
But at any rate, this is a good number to use to further understand Columbia’s student body. Let’s say you get no financial aid above $200K. This means that 51% of the Columbia student body has family that makes over $200k. We also know that the 1 percenters are at 14% (which I agree is absurd). That leaves 38% of Columbia’s student body with families who make between $200k and $600K. Their percentage in society at large? Something like 11%. So these donut hole families are certainly not getting cut out of Columbia. In fact they are over-represented compared to their share of the US population by a factor of 3.5-ish. The UMC is well represented. The schools know this. Which is why they prioritize aid to lower income students. You might not “see” this in your friend circle but it is what the data shows.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/
This! UMC kids are not "shut out" by any stretch.
Anonymous
03/17/2023 22:50
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not clear what OP wants. For it to be free for everyone? For it to be like private k-12 where there are no truly poor students?
For it to be free up to her personal income level. But no higher.
OP: Really I was just making a point. We wouldn't qualify for aid under any scenario, assets way too high.
The core issue is that the retail price tag has just gotten soooooo high. Much higher than it was on a relative basis a generation ago.
The practical effect of this is that the only students who can really attend are the ones who qualify for a ton of aid (because they come from very modest backgrounds) or students who come from very affluent backgrounds where full price is not an issue. Sure, there are some UMC donut hole families who choose to take out tons of loans to make it happen, but many probably choose a cheaper option.
OP. Can you accept your premise might be wrong?
In real data, top schools are not being populated by the under $150K and the above $600K HHI set. People have pointed you to the fact that 45% of the class comes from families who make between that amount. 300K families are not underrepresented at Harvard.
45%, if that number is right, is less thank half.
Families who range between $150K and $300K are 19% of the population. They are represented in the Columbia population at 45%. Does that seem low to you? What percentage of the student body do you think should be made up of those kids in your opinion?
https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/affordability
49 pct of Columbia receives $64k in average aid. Half the school is getting substantial financial aid. Other schools have higher rates up to 65 pct.
You do understand that average aid can be $64K but that does not mean that half the school is getting “substantial aid”, right? We are talking mean not median here.
But at any rate, this is a good number to use to further understand Columbia’s student body. Let’s say you get no financial aid above $200K. This means that 51% of the Columbia student body has family that makes over $200k. We also know that the 1 percenters are at 14% (which I agree is absurd). That leaves 38% of Columbia’s student body with families who make between $200k and $600K. Their percentage in society at large? Something like 11%. So these donut hole families are certainly not getting cut out of Columbia. In fact they are over-represented compared to their share of the US population by a factor of 3.5-ish. The UMC is well represented. The schools know this. Which is why they prioritize aid to lower income students. You might not “see” this in your friend circle but it is what the data shows.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/
Anonymous
03/17/2023 20:18
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not clear what OP wants. For it to be free for everyone? For it to be like private k-12 where there are no truly poor students?
For it to be free up to her personal income level. But no higher.
OP: Really I was just making a point. We wouldn't qualify for aid under any scenario, assets way too high.
The core issue is that the retail price tag has just gotten soooooo high. Much higher than it was on a relative basis a generation ago.
The practical effect of this is that the only students who can really attend are the ones who qualify for a ton of aid (because they come from very modest backgrounds) or students who come from very affluent backgrounds where full price is not an issue. Sure, there are some UMC donut hole families who choose to take out tons of loans to make it happen, but many probably choose a cheaper option.
OP. Can you accept your premise might be wrong?
In real data, top schools are not being populated by the under $150K and the above $600K HHI set. People have pointed you to the fact that 45% of the class comes from families who make between that amount. 300K families are not underrepresented at Harvard.
45%, if that number is right, is less thank half.
Families who range between $150K and $300K are 19% of the population. They are represented in the Columbia population at 45%. Does that seem low to you? What percentage of the student body do you think should be made up of those kids in your opinion?
https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/affordability
49 pct of Columbia receives $64k in average aid. Half the school is getting substantial financial aid. Other schools have higher rates up to 65 pct.
Anonymous
03/17/2023 20:14
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Poor or Rich
Middle class are fukced
This.
Anonymous
03/17/2023 20:05
Subject: Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
I thought those colleges were filled with people who pay a lot of money to be at an exclusive college, away from all their high school friends, but still having prestige.
Anonymous
03/17/2023 19:40
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not clear what OP wants. For it to be free for everyone? For it to be like private k-12 where there are no truly poor students?
For it to be free up to her personal income level. But no higher.
OP: Really I was just making a point. We wouldn't qualify for aid under any scenario, assets way too high.
The core issue is that the retail price tag has just gotten soooooo high. Much higher than it was on a relative basis a generation ago.
The practical effect of this is that the only students who can really attend are the ones who qualify for a ton of aid (because they come from very modest backgrounds) or students who come from very affluent backgrounds where full price is not an issue. Sure, there are some UMC donut hole families who choose to take out tons of loans to make it happen, but many probably choose a cheaper option.
OP. Can you accept your premise might be wrong?
In real data, top schools are not being populated by the under $150K and the above $600K HHI set. People have pointed you to the fact that 45% of the class comes from families who make between that amount. 300K families are not underrepresented at Harvard.
45%, if that number is right, is less thank half.
Families who range between $150K and $300K are 19% of the population. They are represented in the Columbia population at 45%. Does that seem low to you? What percentage of the student body do you think should be made up of those kids in your opinion?
Anonymous
03/17/2023 18:56
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not clear what OP wants. For it to be free for everyone? For it to be like private k-12 where there are no truly poor students?
For it to be free up to her personal income level. But no higher.
OP: Really I was just making a point. We wouldn't qualify for aid under any scenario, assets way too high.
The core issue is that the retail price tag has just gotten soooooo high. Much higher than it was on a relative basis a generation ago.
The practical effect of this is that the only students who can really attend are the ones who qualify for a ton of aid (because they come from very modest backgrounds) or students who come from very affluent backgrounds where full price is not an issue. Sure, there are some UMC donut hole families who choose to take out tons of loans to make it happen, but many probably choose a cheaper option.
OP. Can you accept your premise might be wrong?
In real data, top schools are not being populated by the under $150K and the above $600K HHI set. People have pointed you to the fact that 45% of the class comes from families who make between that amount. 300K families are not underrepresented at Harvard.
My premise is that a majority of students receive need based scholarships averaging 55k or so. In that sense, they are "poor." It was never my view that they are poor like street beggars in India.
It also wasn't my view that the complexion of the top schools is poorer than the entire country. That would be absurd.
I think the reality is, people think these schools are populated by the privileged, but for the most part now, they are underprivileged as they qualify for large amounts of need based aid. So the schools now are "mainly" poor.
Anonymous
03/17/2023 18:42
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not clear what OP wants. For it to be free for everyone? For it to be like private k-12 where there are no truly poor students?
For it to be free up to her personal income level. But no higher.
OP: Really I was just making a point. We wouldn't qualify for aid under any scenario, assets way too high.
The core issue is that the retail price tag has just gotten soooooo high. Much higher than it was on a relative basis a generation ago.
The practical effect of this is that the only students who can really attend are the ones who qualify for a ton of aid (because they come from very modest backgrounds) or students who come from very affluent backgrounds where full price is not an issue. Sure, there are some UMC donut hole families who choose to take out tons of loans to make it happen, but many probably choose a cheaper option.
OP. Can you accept your premise might be wrong?
In real data, top schools are not being populated by the under $150K and the above $600K HHI set. People have pointed you to the fact that 45% of the class comes from families who make between that amount. 300K families are not underrepresented at Harvard.
45%, if that number is right, is less thank half.
Anonymous
03/17/2023 18:16
Subject: Re:Are top private colleges mainly for poor people now?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not clear what OP wants. For it to be free for everyone? For it to be like private k-12 where there are no truly poor students?
For it to be free up to her personal income level. But no higher.
OP: Really I was just making a point. We wouldn't qualify for aid under any scenario, assets way too high.
The core issue is that the retail price tag has just gotten soooooo high. Much higher than it was on a relative basis a generation ago.
The practical effect of this is that the only students who can really attend are the ones who qualify for a ton of aid (because they come from very modest backgrounds) or students who come from very affluent backgrounds where full price is not an issue. Sure, there are some UMC donut hole families who choose to take out tons of loans to make it happen, but many probably choose a cheaper option.
OP. Can you accept your premise might be wrong?
In real data, top schools are not being populated by the under $150K and the above $600K HHI set. People have pointed you to the fact that 45% of the class comes from families who make between that amount. 300K families are not underrepresented at Harvard.