Really? So the only people who should be able to go to Ivy League schools are those poor enough to get aid and those rich enough to pay for the entire fee? We shouldn't be evaluating our youth on their merit? What kind of solution is that?
Great way to make sure that the children of the professional class of people who make that sort of money (lawyers, engineers, nurses) not work as hard as possible and use their upbringing to contribute to the future of the country. Putrid take.
> Really? So the only people who should be able to go to Ivy League schools are those poor enough to get aid and those rich enough to pay for the entire fee?
Giving poor kids a leg up over upper middle class kids is a win regardless of what you do with rich kids. That’s a separate issue.
> Great way to make sure that the children of the professional class of people who make that sort of money (lawyers, engineers, nurses) not work as hard as possible and use their upbringing to contribute to the future of the country.
The upper middle class has been instrumental in the last few decades in driving inequality. Behind every factory that’s shut down in Milwaukee and outsourced to China there’s lawyers and consultants and even logistical engineers making that happen. See: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jul/15/how-us-mi...
Why would you do that through financial aid? If a kid's worked hard enough to get into school they should be allowed to go regardless of their financial status, 75k a year is not affordable at all to a household making 150k a year. After taxes that's nearly all of that home's take home pay. You can give poor kids a leg up with consideration to their backgrounds during admissions time - make it harder for more privileged kids to get into school in the first place, I'm all for it. I don't see how that's a separate issue at all.
Your second point doesn't make any sense - we should be punishing children because of the amorphous negative externalities of every professional in the United States economy? They're to blame as opposed to the leadership of modern corporations that vote themselves multi million dollar bonuses each year while offshoring business and keeping worker pay down?
We’re not talking about “punishing” individual kids. We are talking about the policies adopted by non-profit colleges with respect to use of their endowments. I don’t see any problem with basing that decision on the desire to reduce income inequality—inequality that’s being driven in large part by armies of upper middle class people who have been pulling away from the middle class over 30 years just as even richer people have. What’s wrong with universities structuring their financial aid policies with that in mind?
First, the $150k is at the time of child’s application, not over their entire life.
Second, college tuition has been increasing at highly variable rates so I doubt anyone would have guessed that tuition would increase 8%/year for 18 years.
Third, four years of Dartmouth tuition is $300k. Let’s graciously say the average income over the kid’s 18 years is $100k. That means that that parents would need to save $16k/year or 16%. There’s no tax deferred program that allows $16k/year so factor in tax dollars.
Fourth, families frequently have multiple children. So if they have two, you think parents should save 30% of their income for college? Or if 3, 45%?
It’s funny how people imagine $150k is some massive amount of money. And it’s a decent living, but it’s not something that paying an extra $6k per month is possible.
I've stopped bothering to argue this commenter, it's clear they think that an engineer making 150k a year supporting a family is the same as Jeff Bezos.
So we should be punishing children of consultants to make them atone for the hereditary sins of writing reports/collecting information so some executive somewhere can actually make the call?
What college costs $75k/year? My kids go to the flagship state school in Illinois (Champaign), their tuition is less than 1/4 of that, and we pay full freight.
So, respectfully, and I'm sorry for the emotive language, but don't fucking go to Dartmouth. The existence of the Bugatti Veyron does not means cars in general are a 7 figure purchase.
No, it isn't. Dartmouth is a luxury good. It's undeserving of any public policy consideration. If my parents found it easier to buy a yacht than I do, I wouldn't consider public policy interventions to "correct" the situation; I'd write my parents yacht off as a blip, and move forward.
Why? Why do parents even have an expected contribution for college? I mean, if they want to help their kids out, then go for it, but why is the expectation that when one adult purchases a certain service, we analyze the finances of related adults to determine how much the service should cost. No other thing operates like that.
I think most parents help their kids. For me, my parents had tax problems so I was unable to complete a FAFSA so I couldn’t get any aid that depended on the FAFSA.
Although I don’t know a fix because if you had special situations for people like me, people would abuse it. I had a friend with divorced parents. The dad was pretty wealthy making like $500/year and paying the mom $100k/year in child support so the mom didn’t work and had like $3k tax returns from some part time job. She swore an affidavit that she received zero income from the dad and that the son was estranged from the dad. So the friend got a 100% needs based scholarship. It’s not like schools have an investigative arm to test claims.
Good?