Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did the FAFSA rules change re counting parental income if you were no longer dependent on your parents? Meaning living on your own, working, paying for your own at expenses at 18+.

You’re independent at 24 or if in grad school. It has been that way for a long time.

In the early 200s when I was in grad and undergrad, I was independent at 18. I lived on my own, paid my own insurance, worked, and went to school. I received grants and loans. Parental income was never required as I was independent. It sounds like today, you can be 18 and living on your own with no support from your parents and still not be considered independent.

No, you're misremembering. In 2000, independence was still 24 and above. The policy was still that a parents unwillingness to pay did not create independence.

https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/sech6-app.pdf

Lol. You think I’m misremembering that I had parents pay tuition for me that I did not? Sorry sweets, there were clearly exceptions allowed. I worked FT afternoons/evenings/weekends and made between 13-19k during those years. No parental income was required by GMU’s financial aid office. I didn’t even know where my parents were to have asked them to provide their income. Things clearly weren’t as black and white as you claim they were.

Backing you up. A bit earlier, about 1994-95, my friend established her independence by being on her own, working, paying taxes, renting for 2 years after high school. No one went after her parents. That was in MA.

why don't you look at the actual official document I posted, which relates to 2000, and states in black and white that independence starts at 24 for undergrad, for federal aid?

the current definition of "independent student" as starting at 24 has been around for over a generation. it's not the source of our current issues with college costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many people who get zero support from their families for college who can't get any type of financial aid because of their parents' income. Once they are over 18, even if they pay all their own expenses, there is no way (other than getting married) to not have their parents' income considered for financial aid purposes. If I were in that boat, I'd try to get declared independent of my parents before I become 18. If they aren't paying for me once I move out, I don't consider it fraud. If the government feels so strongly that parents should pay, count their support and garnish their wages for their deemed portion. It's not fair to not do that and then attribute income to students who don't see a dime.

They are paying for their kids health insurance during college, and few moved out. They are not independent

In the cases in the article, but there are many students who don't get any support and are still burdened with counting their parents' income.

Well yeah ... our higher ed finance system generally views parents as having the responsibility to help pay for undergrad until the child is 24. There are a lot of messed up things about college costs, but I can't really get that exercised about this one. For really extreme cases (abuse) individual financial aid officers can override the policy.

Obviously, you haven't talked to millions (?) of kids who didn't get FA and couldn't afford college or are settled with high debts because their deadbeat and absent parents made too much money and they couldn't declare themselves independent. Go outside your comfort zone sometimes.

Those who cry fraud should read the court briefs filed by those people. I particularly like the phrase: "The Guardian can provide educational and financial support and opportunities to the minor that her parents could not otherwise provide" - that's really rubbing it in, isn't it. Have a court certify that a child is better off educationally if their parents drop them. That's what happened here apparently.

Agreed. I've come across plenty of stories of people who had to turn down a more expensive college because parents refused to pay. We're not talking about turning down an Ivy for instate, but turning down a solid instate school to go to community colleges.

Then at the same time the colleges willingly admit students who can only afford to come by taking out huge loans and are saddled with an enormous debt upon graduation. They let these students enroll and promise them it's no big deal and they'll be sure to pay it off quickly. Then the student graduates and real world hits them in the face and they're still paying off the loans decades later.

Then you have schools giving out merit aid to students who turn up on campus in new BMWs (yes, I remember a few instances of this happening).

The whole system is utterly broken and it's driven by out of reality tuition levels.

The broken part is that states are cutting taxes and not funding public colleges.

I feel sorry for that (small) number of kids with deadbeat parents, but the system cannot be shaped around them. They can go to community college, or wait until 24 when they are considered independent by FAFSA.

The lack of public funding has little to do with the skyrocketing costs of private college tuition, which has rapidly outpaced inflation. The whole system is broken. A lot of it is clearly because loans are so easy to get so colleges keep raising tuition with the knowledge that students will just take out more loans backed by the feds. It's a systematic failure due to many factors, not just one or two.

Well, your kid is not entitled to go to a private college. By choosing a private college, you're choosing to pay that price.

Anonymous wrote:Aside from the financial assistance, this strategy is playing w/ fire. A parent relinquishes all medical authorization and other legal rights - can't claim your kids o your tax forms, medical insurance, life insurance, etc all affected when you are no longer the "parent".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did the FAFSA rules change re counting parental income if you were no longer dependent on your parents? Meaning living on your own, working, paying for your own at expenses at 18+.

You’re independent at 24 or if in grad school. It has been that way for a long time.

In the early 200s when I was in grad and undergrad, I was independent at 18. I lived on my own, paid my own insurance, worked, and went to school. I received grants and loans. Parental income was never required as I was independent. It sounds like today, you can be 18 and living on your own with no support from your parents and still not be considered independent.

No, you're misremembering. In 2000, independence was still 24 and above. The policy was still that a parents unwillingness to pay did not create independence.

https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/sech6-app.pdf

Lol. You think I’m misremembering that I had parents pay tuition for me that I did not? Sorry sweets, there were clearly exceptions allowed. I worked FT afternoons/evenings/weekends and made between 13-19k during those years. No parental income was required by GMU’s financial aid office. I didn’t even know where my parents were to have asked them to provide their income. Things clearly weren’t as black and white as you claim they were.

Backing you up. A bit earlier, about 1994-95, my friend established her independence by being on her own, working, paying taxes, renting for 2 years after high school. No one went after her parents. That was in MA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did the FAFSA rules change re counting parental income if you were no longer dependent on your parents? Meaning living on your own, working, paying for your own at expenses at 18+.

You’re independent at 24 or if in grad school. It has been that way for a long time.

In the early 200s when I was in grad and undergrad, I was independent at 18. I lived on my own, paid my own insurance, worked, and went to school. I received grants and loans. Parental income was never required as I was independent. It sounds like today, you can be 18 and living on your own with no support from your parents and still not be considered independent.

No, you're misremembering. In 2000, independence was still 24 and above. The policy was still that a parents unwillingness to pay did not create independence.

https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/sech6-app.pdf

Lol. You think I’m misremembering that I had parents pay tuition for me that I did not? Sorry sweets, there were clearly exceptions allowed. I worked FT afternoons/evenings/weekends and made between 13-19k during those years. No parental income was required by GMU’s financial aid office. I didn’t even know where my parents were to have asked them to provide their income. Things clearly weren’t as black and white as you claim they were.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have totally done this for my children. My grad school loans have been a drag for almost a decade and I would do anything short of defined fraud to keep them from having loans. It is so typical to go into hysterics over a few people gaming the system while colleges jack up tuition rates past the point of affordability. No one owes our secondary education system any honor.

But it's taking money from people who actually need the aid. Do you also think it's ok use fake addressses to get into better elementary schools, in-state tuition, lower taxes?

... fake your income to get rent control, fake your income to get approved for a mortgage, hide assets from medicare .... I could go on.

You went on too far, medicare has no connection to assets.

Anonymous wrote:As I recall, the rules changed sometime in the ‘90s. When I was a student in the 80s, you could declare yourself independent if your parents provided no more than $700 a year in support and you did not live at home, even in the summers. Which I did on for myself after my parents informed me I was on own for college expenses. Independent status got me Pell grants and subsidized student loans. I covered the rest with scholarships and work. I can see why they closed that gap, but it certainly restricts options for kids from families with modest resources.

Anonymous wrote:As I recall, the rules changed sometime in the ‘90s. When I was a student in the 80s, you could declare yourself independent if your parents provided no more than $700 a year in support and you did not live at home, even in the summers. Which I did on for myself after my parents informed me I was on own for college expenses. Independent status got me Pell grants and subsidized student loans. I covered the rest with scholarships and work. I can see why they closed that gap, but it certainly restricts options for kids from families with modest resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would have totally done this for my children. My grad school loans have been a drag for almost a decade and I would do anything short of defined fraud to keep them from having loans. It is so typical to go into hysterics over a few people gaming the system while colleges jack up tuition rates past the point of affordability. No one owes our secondary education system any honor.

But it's taking money from people who actually need the aid. Do you also think it's ok use fake addressses to get into better elementary schools, in-state tuition, lower taxes?

... fake your income to get rent control, fake your income to get approved for a mortgage, hide assets from medicare .... I could go on.

You already went too far. The examples you gave are illegal. In the example we're discussing, a court has certified that these children are educationally better off without their biological parents being guardians.

A system's loopholes are reflective of the substance upon which a system is built. If people "game" the system and that leads to undesirable outcomes, it's unwise to blame those people who act rationally and do. Blame the system instead.

lol, no. these parents are going to be charged criminally, and their kids are going to have their admissions revoked. just wait and see. these were not authentic guardianship proceedings; they were shams.

Yup, the colleges these kids are at are pissed, because these well off kids took financial aid available to the poorest kids. That's fraud and theft--and, I wouldn't be surprised if there are disciplinary actions to the law firms involved, particularly the lawyer who gave up guardianship of his teenage son right before college.

Yes, especially the MAP program in Illinois cited in the article. Only 5,000 students can qualify, and the aid is distributed first-come, first-served basis. You can bet these supposedly split-up families got their MAP requests in on the first day, leaving others who needed the help out of luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many people who get zero support from their families for college who can't get any type of financial aid because of their parents' income. Once they are over 18, even if they pay all their own expenses, there is no way (other than getting married) to not have their parents' income considered for financial aid purposes. If I were in that boat, I'd try to get declared independent of my parents before I become 18. If they aren't paying for me once I move out, I don't consider it fraud. If the government feels so strongly that parents should pay, count their support and garnish their wages for their deemed portion. It's not fair to not do that and then attribute income to students who don't see a dime.

They are paying for their kids health insurance during college, and few moved out. They are not independent

In the cases in the article, but there are many students who don't get any support and are still burdened with counting their parents' income.

Well yeah ... our higher ed finance system generally views parents as having the responsibility to help pay for undergrad until the child is 24. There are a lot of messed up things about college costs, but I can't really get that exercised about this one. For really extreme cases (abuse) individual financial aid officers can override the policy.

Obviously, you haven't talked to millions (?) of kids who didn't get FA and couldn't afford college or are settled with high debts because their deadbeat and absent parents made too much money and they couldn't declare themselves independent. Go outside your comfort zone sometimes.

Those who cry fraud should read the court briefs filed by those people. I particularly like the phrase: "The Guardian can provide educational and financial support and opportunities to the minor that her parents could not otherwise provide" - that's really rubbing it in, isn't it. Have a court certify that a child is better off educationally if their parents drop them. That's what happened here apparently.

Agreed. I've come across plenty of stories of people who had to turn down a more expensive college because parents refused to pay. We're not talking about turning down an Ivy for instate, but turning down a solid instate school to go to community colleges.

Then at the same time the colleges willingly admit students who can only afford to come by taking out huge loans and are saddled with an enormous debt upon graduation. They let these students enroll and promise them it's no big deal and they'll be sure to pay it off quickly. Then the student graduates and real world hits them in the face and they're still paying off the loans decades later.

Then you have schools giving out merit aid to students who turn up on campus in new BMWs (yes, I remember a few instances of this happening).

The whole system is utterly broken and it's driven by out of reality tuition levels.

The broken part is that states are cutting taxes and not funding public colleges.

I feel sorry for that (small) number of kids with deadbeat parents, but the system cannot be shaped around them. They can go to community college, or wait until 24 when they are considered independent by FAFSA.

The lack of public funding has little to do with the skyrocketing costs of private college tuition, which has rapidly outpaced inflation. The whole system is broken. A lot of it is clearly because loans are so easy to get so colleges keep raising tuition with the knowledge that students will just take out more loans backed by the feds. It's a systematic failure due to many factors, not just one or two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When did the FAFSA rules change re counting parental income if you were no longer dependent on your parents? Meaning living on your own, working, paying for your own at expenses at 18+.

You’re independent at 24 or if in grad school. It has been that way for a long time.

In the early 200s when I was in grad and undergrad, I was independent at 18. I lived on my own, paid my own insurance, worked, and went to school. I received grants and loans. Parental income was never required as I was independent. It sounds like today, you can be 18 and living on your own with no support from your parents and still not be considered independent.

No, you're misremembering. In 2000, independence was still 24 and above. The policy was still that a parents unwillingness to pay did not create independence.

https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/sech6-app.pdf

Lol. You think I’m misremembering that I had parents pay tuition for me that I did not? Sorry sweets, there were clearly exceptions allowed. I worked FT afternoons/evenings/weekends and made between 13-19k during those years. No parental income was required by GMU’s financial aid office. I didn’t even know where my parents were to have asked them to provide their income. Things clearly weren’t as black and white as you claim they were.