Anonymous wrote:Human brains aren’t fully developed until around 25. And people expect 18 year olds to make good life decisions. They need guidance.

My parents paid for my college and graduate school. I worked very hard. When I got out, I picked my work opportunities without being forced because of a crushing debt.

Education is so important.

Sure. But your parents had the means to pay for it - and grad school!! So you don't come from a typical family or situation. My mom was a widow who lived on SS and a tiny plumbers pension. My father died when I was in kindergarten. DH's parents had very middle class jobs - school admin office and car factory labor worker; his dad took on a side business, but still he and his sibling took on significant loans for undergrad.

For those of us coming from families who couldn't swing it, played catch up, AND now college tuition is considerably more relative to household income, we might have gotten more prestigious jobs so to speak, but still not necessarily able to swing paying full tuition for our kids. This is where UMC stay UMC and MC still struggle to climb any further.

It's the donut hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.

College was absolutely cheaper back then...in 1950 Harvard was $625/year and around $1,000/year including room and board and the median HHI was $3,100.

In 1990, Harvard total cost of attendance was $19,395 and median HHI was $50,000.

Today, Harvard total cost of attendance is $83,538 and median HHI is $75,000/

So, Harvard went from 32% to 39% to 111% of HHI over those time periods.

University of MD total COA in 1990 for in-state was $6,500, so, 13% of HHI. Current in-state total COA is $29,637, so 40% of HHI.

Perhaps the bigger issue is just how little median HHI has increased since 1990.

Human brains aren’t fully developed until around 25. And people expect 18 year olds to make good life decisions. They need guidance.

My parents paid for my college and graduate school. I worked very hard. When I got out, I picked my work opportunities without being forced because of a crushing debt.

Education is so important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paying 100% of your kids’ college is a DMV thing. I’m from PA and it’s not the expectation. None of my siblings gs helped their kids through college.

For me, I agree on skin in the game. And I think that a lot of college is a waste of money. If your kid needs a specialized program then expensive might be necessary. But most are fine with community college and a state university. So that’s what I’m willing to pay. Beyond that, they are on their own.

It's not a DMV or PA or any state thing. It's a class thing. Bethesda is no different from the Main Line or Squirrel Hill or Sewickly or any comfortably off family in Pennsylvania. IF you have the money, you pay for the kids' colleges. It's that simple.

Exactly and this is another example of why rich/Umc families stay that way for generations while other people have generational struggle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.

College was absolutely cheaper back then...in 1950 Harvard was $625/year and around $1,000/year including room and board and the median HHI was $3,100.

In 1990, Harvard total cost of attendance was $19,395 and median HHI was $50,000.

Today, Harvard total cost of attendance is $83,538 and median HHI is $75,000/

So, Harvard went from 32% to 39% to 111% of HHI over those time periods.

And this is where it's even more absurd to expect to cover 100% of student tuition. Removing Harvard from the conversation, even back when college tuition was more reasonable, the average MC family wasn't paying for all of it; perhaps the UMC could. But now that college tuition is dramatically more expensive relative to HHI, there seems to be a HIGHER expectation is to pay for all of it (??).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family is different and that is OK. We have catholic friends with 12 children - to them the gift is life and they have told the kids that they are on their own at age 18, meaning no college or community college or whatever they can hardscrabble together. And they will do fine. In my family, getting a four-year degree for women was paramount (everyone had been depression era children and women unfavored). It is what it is.

My husband did the military as his parents couldn't afford college and it wasn't an option. Given he didn't get his degree till his early 40's and then the second career too another 10-15 years to earn anything, I don't get why you'd do that to your kids if you can afford to pay. People make it sound easy and its not.

You missed the point entirely in your rush to judge. If you have twelve kids you cannot send them all to college at now $93K a year for private

It’s fine to judge the utter selfishness that is having 12 kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.

College was absolutely cheaper back then...in 1950 Harvard was $625/year and around $1,000/year including room and board and the median HHI was $3,100.

In 1990, Harvard total cost of attendance was $19,395 and median HHI was $50,000.

Today, Harvard total cost of attendance is $83,538 and median HHI is $75,000/

So, Harvard went from 32% to 39% to 111% of HHI over those time periods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.

No. Places like Richmond and Wake Forest were 20-25k tuition 30 years ago.

This. Georgetown was under $25K in 1993. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1993/05/24/area-colleges-expect-smaller-cost-increases/3a949c57-b4c9-4dd5-8620-0b15f6c5051f/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always loan your kid some portion of college tuition if you want them to have skin in the game but not subject to the public markets.

Make it official and have them sign a loan agreement…and then decide if you want to forgive it if the kid has turned out OK.

It's not skin in the game as most have no concept of debt or what it means till after they graduate. Skin in the game would be working through college.

plus most educational loans are forgiven, especially if you work in public service.

ub no. It's difficult and the rules are complicated. I have educational loans and of course they have not been forgiven. The only ones that biden have forgiven (a very stupid campaign promise IMHE) has not impacted ANYONE I know. Can you say differently?

Rules are straightforward for PSLF, reached 120 payments while working for an eligible facility and remainder forgiven

-RN

This -- in 2021, they revised the rules which allowed me to count payments that weren't in the "right" payment plan even though all of my loans were federal (undergrad and grad). We had opted for the graduated payment plan, in which your payments increased over time, presumably as your income increased. I started working for an eligible employer months before the PSLF program started. I was able to get my $65000 debt cancelled (more than I started with thanks to interest even with 15 years of payments) and a refund of my overpayments. The refund money went straight into my daughters 529 account, with a little taken out for a nice spring break trip. She starts college in the fall, and we really don't want her to take loans. We may have her take some and we'll pay them off, but I don't want to saddle her with the burden that I had.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.

No. Places like Richmond and Wake Forest were 20-25k tuition 30 years ago.

+1, my small private liberal arts college was $20-25k in the late 90s/early 00s, currently over $70k all in now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I know is by the time my kids are old enough to buy a house, the average price is north of $1 million around here. If they are saddled with loans, they will never own a home.

Why can't they just move to a low cost of living area?It's how my MD brother in law paid his full med loans off. Why do you expect your kids to buy in a million dollar house area?

Because the marriage prospects are dismal. My sister did this to pay off her loans and she’ll probably never get married. We’re going to really try to pay for our kids’ schooling.

Huh? Low cost of living could mean Charlotte NC or Buffalo NY. They could meet their spouse in college and move together (smart move by my siblings who shared a combined debt of loans from medical and veterinary school). It doesn't have to mean east bumble f*ck. Or it could if it is what the kid wants, so be it. Worrying about or trying to control where they live for marriage prospects sounds meddlesome.

What is this, 2009? My sister’s house in a middling Charlotte suburb cost over 900k and she got a crappy interest rate.

Plus, have you been to Buffalo NY? It's miserable6 months of the year and never stops snowing---Lake effect snow is a nightmare.

My kid is nearby for college (1 hour) and none of their friends plan to stay in Rochester---it's an amazing school but realistically they all want to head elsewhere for their careers.

I have - it's where some family moved to have a LCOL area while they paid off loans. They love it and are raising their kids there in a suburb of Buffalo w/ cheap houses and excellent schools. To each their own, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

DP to add, even becoming unrealistic for UMC. UMC can perhaps cover state tuition if they plan very well, but private tuition for more than one kid? It's like fully owning 3 houses.

Umc can afford college. It’s about lifestyle choices.

Depends on a lot. Are you UMC because you got there quickly with generational wealth, your parents helped you pay for college and/or cars previously, a down payment on a house, etc. Or are you UMC after spending 1-2 decades paying off prior loans, saving for a down payment (in our case, $3k was all we could afford on a fixer upper in an "undesirable" area), and climbing the ladder?

Are you UMC technically by national income standards but MC in an urban area because you are beholden to a job in a HCOL area? FAFSA doesn't care if you live in DC or rural flyover country. My income is $120k but would be $40k less outside of the DMV area. DH would also earn considerably less.

But yes, we're UMC technically speaking. No, we won't be able to afford to send our kids full ride.

Anonymous wrote:Paying 100% of your kids’ college is a DMV thing. I’m from PA and it’s not the expectation. None of my siblings gs helped their kids through college.

For me, I agree on skin in the game. And I think that a lot of college is a waste of money. If your kid needs a specialized program then expensive might be necessary. But most are fine with community college and a state university. So that’s what I’m willing to pay. Beyond that, they are on their own.

It's not a DMV or PA or any state thing. It's a class thing. Bethesda is no different from the Main Line or Squirrel Hill or Sewickly or any comfortably off family in Pennsylvania. IF you have the money, you pay for the kids' colleges. It's that simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.

No. Places like Richmond and Wake Forest were 20-25k tuition 30 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I know is by the time my kids are old enough to buy a house, the average price is north of $1 million around here. If they are saddled with loans, they will never own a home.

Why can't they just move to a low cost of living area?It's how my MD brother in law paid his full med loans off. Why do you expect your kids to buy in a million dollar house area?

Because the marriage prospects are dismal. My sister did this to pay off her loans and she’ll probably never get married. We’re going to really try to pay for our kids’ schooling.

Huh? Low cost of living could mean Charlotte NC or Buffalo NY. They could meet their spouse in college and move together (smart move by my siblings who shared a combined debt of loans from medical and veterinary school). It doesn't have to mean east bumble f*ck. Or it could if it is what the kid wants, so be it. Worrying about or trying to control where they live for marriage prospects sounds meddlesome.

What is this, 2009? My sister’s house in a middling Charlotte suburb cost over 900k and she got a crappy interest rate.

Plus, have you been to Buffalo NY? It's miserable6 months of the year and never stops snowing---Lake effect snow is a nightmare.

My kid is nearby for college (1 hour) and none of their friends plan to stay in Rochester---it's an amazing school but realistically they all want to head elsewhere for their careers.