Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo

Flabbergasted by friends' lack of awareness of college costs - UPDATE in post #440


439 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#401 luuknam

luuknam

    From The Neverlands

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8073 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 04:15 PM

Okay, sure, we can agree to disagree. And I have no problem with employers writing retirement contracts differently. I just think that to the taxpayer, it doesn't really matter if Bob retires and then works some more, or if Bob retires and Joe then does his job. And that if you've earned x amount of money for putting in your 40 years or w/e, it doesn't make sense to expect someone to work for free or almost free if they happen to continue the same job, but to pay them if they change into a (slightly or completely) different job. 


  • JoJosMom and eternalsummer like this

#402 luuknam

luuknam

    From The Neverlands

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8073 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 04:17 PM

I mean, you're basically saying that if Bob is principal of district x, and Joe is principal of district y, you're fine with both of them retiring and switching jobs, but if they retire and then keep their own job, they'd have to work for (almost) free. Failing to see the logic in that. 


  • JoJosMom, daijobu and eternalsummer like this

#403 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24940 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 04:19 PM

I mean, you're basically saying that if Bob is principal of district x, and Joe is principal of district y, you're fine with both of them retiring and switching jobs, but if they retire and then keep their own job, they'd have to work for (almost) free. Failing to see the logic in that. 

 

Why are you assuming they must work for almost free?  Retirement isn't forced.  They can retire later.

 

And no, taxpayers aren't necessarily paying "the new guy" the same.  New employees often make less than those who have been there for decades.  Raises come with years on the job.


  • frogger, snowbeltmom and CinV like this

#404 eternalsummer

eternalsummer

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5149 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 04:29 PM

When my mom retired and then took a half-time position doing the same job at the same place, they offered her a payout to retire that year (I think it was like 3 months' salary, maybe) and continue working part-time.  Then they hired someone else to work the other half of what had previously been her sole position.

 

She works for a community college as a librarian; she has worked for 20-30 years as a reference librarian with an MLS.  

 

So anyway, for the community college, it was cheaper to have her do this than to have her continue on as a full-time worker at her previous salary for the next 5-10 years.  So she retired, but works part time at the same job and is paid both for the part time work she does now and gets her retirement money.  I think part of the reason for this is that keeping her on alone full-time was a higher salary than either she or the other part time person makes hourly now.

 

For my mom, it makes a lot more sense to work part time as a librarian than part time as a WalMart cashier, because it pays better and she knows the work.  She also works part time for the local library system (for whom she worked, briefly, 20 years ago), so she really works 40 hours a week while drawing retirement.

 

She could not support herself without the work.  When she retired, it was retirement from the official salaried position - similar to a professorship - which required her to do meetings and graduation and advising and taking other peoples' missed shifts and volunteer work with this or that group and etc.

 

She was 65; she is now 70.  she will probably work like this just as long as she physically can.

 

 



#405 Arcadia

Arcadia

    Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17322 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 04:32 PM

I just think that to the taxpayer, it doesn't really matter if Bob retires and then works some more, or if Bob retires and Joe then does his job.


There is a difference between Bob has officially retired and no one wants his job so he was rehired on a yearly contract, and Bob has officially retired but continues doing his job for the pay and the job opening was never opened for anyone else. In the second scenario, Joe didn’t get a chance to apply for Bob’s job.

For example my school district’s former superintendent retired after two years on the job but has worked twenty odd years with the school district rising through the ranks. The assistant superintendent would be happy for the chance to be promoted to superintendent and someone else would be happy to get a chance for the assistant superintendent position if it vacant. The school district superintendent job ended up going to someone else out of the school district. It would definitely annoy residents if the retired superintendent just continued his job and get both pension and pay when there were quite a few eligible candidates who applied for that post.

My dad is a retired teacher. When his nearby school principal couldn’t find anyone willing to do a one year Chinese language substitute teacher contract because they have a Chinese language teacher on a one year medical leave of absence, the school called him and ask if he could cover a year or even a semester to “bail them out”. If someone else has last minute wanted that job, my dad would have let him/her have it.
  • Frances, creekland, Heigh Ho and 1 other like this

#406 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24940 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 04:46 PM

When my mom retired and then took a half-time position doing the same job at the same place, they offered her a payout to retire that year (I think it was like 3 months' salary, maybe) and continue working part-time.  Then they hired someone else to work the other half of what had previously been her sole position.

 

She works for a community college as a librarian; she has worked for 20-30 years as a reference librarian with an MLS.  

 

So anyway, for the community college, it was cheaper to have her do this than to have her continue on as a full-time worker at her previous salary for the next 5-10 years.  So she retired, but works part time at the same job and is paid both for the part time work she does now and gets her retirement money.  I think part of the reason for this is that keeping her on alone full-time was a higher salary than either she or the other part time person makes hourly now.

 

For my mom, it makes a lot more sense to work part time as a librarian than part time as a WalMart cashier, because it pays better and she knows the work.  She also works part time for the local library system (for whom she worked, briefly, 20 years ago), so she really works 40 hours a week while drawing retirement.

 

She could not support herself without the work.  When she retired, it was retirement from the official salaried position - similar to a professorship - which required her to do meetings and graduation and advising and taking other peoples' missed shifts and volunteer work with this or that group and etc.

 

She was 65; she is now 70.  she will probably work like this just as long as she physically can.

 

I see this as totally different when it's a win-win for both (your mom wanting fewer hours and the combo of pay being less for the cc).  It's not at all the same as pretending to retire, then staying on at the same salary rather than coming on as a new hire earning less.


  • frogger and snowbeltmom like this

#407 luuknam

luuknam

    From The Neverlands

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8073 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 05:10 PM

Why are you assuming they must work for almost free?  Retirement isn't forced.  They can retire later.

 

And no, taxpayers aren't necessarily paying "the new guy" the same.  New employees often make less than those who have been there for decades.  Raises come with years on the job.

 

Whether they forgo their retirement income (for now) or their salary is kind of a moot point. They're forgoing money they'd be getting for sitting on their butt eating bonbons all day. I.e. they're working for (almost) free compared to not working. As to the latter, and Arcadia's point:

 

There is a difference between Bob has officially retired and no one wants his job so he was rehired on a yearly contract, and Bob has officially retired but continues doing his job for the pay and the job opening was never opened for anyone else. In the second scenario, Joe didn’t get a chance to apply for Bob’s job.

 

 

I think that if someone retires but wants to continue or is begged by the district to continue or w/e, they should have to reapply to the position. That way Joe gets a chance, and they have to redo their salary negotiations. So, I agree with y'all there. 


Edited by luuknam, 12 February 2018 - 05:10 PM.


#408 eternalsummer

eternalsummer

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5149 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 05:19 PM

The thing is, asking someone to not take the benefits they agreed to/were contracted with when they took the job or continued in the job is kind of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.  When Boomers made these agreements they thought they were taking less salary now in return for more benefits later.  It was part of the negotiated total compensation agreement, right?  So then if you get to retirement age and you don't want people to retire just because they are able and willing to keep working, you're saying well, I know you agreed to X salary plus Y retirement plus Z benefits, but you don't really need Y retirement so it's immoral to take it.

 

If it is immoral to take it, then it was immoral to offer it as part of the compensation package in the first place and they should have just negotiated a higher salary.

 

All of that said, the problem of people living rather a lot longer than originally anticipated - so they're drawing retirement not for 10 years but for 20 years - and healthcare costs going up, both because people are less healthy and because they live longer in poor health or with chronic conditions is that these agreements have ended up costing more than the institutions expected, and someone has to pay.  In terms of universities, I guess the cost is largely passed on to Gen X and especially Millennials - surprise! 


  • JoJosMom and daijobu like this

#409 Heigh Ho

Heigh Ho

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12328 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 05:27 PM

Double dipping will work out very well for the employee...retire every twenty years.  That's quite a hefty payout at age 65, given the heftty school pensions.


Edited by Heigh Ho, 12 February 2018 - 05:28 PM.


#410 Kinsa

Kinsa

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10091 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 06:09 PM

Ugh. Nevermind. I guess we're just unethical.

Edited by Kinsa, 12 February 2018 - 06:12 PM.

  • Dotwithaperiod, JoJosMom and eternalsummer like this

#411 regentrude

regentrude

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27040 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 06:28 PM

In compliance with what the IRS rules (which require a bona fide termination of the employment), our college has the rule that if you retire before 62, you can only be rehired if:

- there has not been an agreement about your rehire before your retirement

- you are not allowed to apply for any position before retirement is effective

- there must be a 3 months break between retirement date and rehire

- you can only be employed part time without benefits

I am pretty sure the intent is to prevent people from "retiring" and turning around to return for full time benefit eligible employment the next day which would be ripe for abuse.

 

I still find it very strange that it is even possible.

None of my many colleagues above 65 is drawing a pension and a salary concurrently.

 

 


Edited by regentrude, 12 February 2018 - 10:25 PM.

  • Frances, creekland and MysteryJen like this

#412 Heigh Ho

Heigh Ho

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12328 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 06:46 PM

In NY, a nondisabled city or state employee under the age of 65 can draw a full pension and up to $30k annually from the new city or state job. After that they give back the pension dollar for dollar earned.  Over 65, they have no income limit.

 

 

 

 

 



#413 Sandwalker

Sandwalker

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 897 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:26 PM

In NY, a nondisabled city or state employee under the age of 65 can draw a full pension and up to $30k annually from the new city or state job. After that they give back the pension dollar for dollar earned. Over 65, they have no income limit.

And that's one reason why NY taxes are so high.
  • CinV likes this

#414 MarkT

MarkT

    Empress Bee

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 2677 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:36 PM

in the private sector pensions have been phased out or are in that process.

The 401K with match is the "new" pension.



#415 Dotwithaperiod

Dotwithaperiod

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5836 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:38 PM

Yes, apparently. There is some sort of Questbridge program where high achieving and low income kids can be matched with elite schools. A few of the kids report EFCs of 0. There aren't many, though.

[Edited to add link to program.]


I looked it up. An income of $24,000 qualifies for EFC of zero.
  • RootAnn and creekland like this

#416 eternalsummer

eternalsummer

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5149 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:49 PM

$24k is very hard to live on in just about any area (although government benefits can bump the effective income to something a lot closer to $40k, which is liveable)



#417 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24940 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 08:12 PM

The thing is, asking someone to not take the benefits they agreed to/were contracted with when they took the job or continued in the job is kind of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.  When Boomers made these agreements they thought they were taking less salary now in return for more benefits later.  It was part of the negotiated total compensation agreement, right?  So then if you get to retirement age and you don't want people to retire just because they are able and willing to keep working, you're saying well, I know you agreed to X salary plus Y retirement plus Z benefits, but you don't really need Y retirement so it's immoral to take it. 

 

This depends upon the intent at the time however many years ago that it was written.  Were they expecting people to retire and continue working at the same salary or was that a loophole someone found later and exploited knowing the mistake couldn't be changed to be more fair because "it's in the contract!!!"?  I strongly suspect it was a loophole and no one assumed someone would retire and continue working at the same job for the same amount of money + retirement benefits at the same time, just so they could earn double their salary.

 

Rules are being rewritten now to counter that (akin to Regentrude's post).  I find it sad that they have to be rewritten due to folks abusing the system.


  • kiana and snowbeltmom like this

#418 kiana

kiana

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7625 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 08:17 PM

Rules are being rewritten now to counter that (akin to Regentrude's post).  I find it sad that they have to be rewritten due to folks abusing the system.

 

Yes. 

 

I could totally picture situations where someone might retire in good faith and be asked to come back later for a year to cover an unexpected absence of someone else. Situations like that I'd be fine with. 


  • Frances, MBM, creekland and 1 other like this

#419 daijobu

daijobu

    Hive Mind Worker Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2550 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 10:22 PM

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, but the chief of police of my town retired after vesting for retirement, and then turned around and took a job with the sheriff's department.  He pointed out to us (friends at my tennis club) that since they have a different retirement system, he can vest there and augment his benefits.  <shrug.>  

 

I don't view it as immoral, since he's following the rules.  And police work is dangerous no matter how you slice it, so I don't begrudge him a generous pension.  But it's also not an ideal situation for taxpayers.  

 

I think if we had stronger unions and more widespread participation, we'd be less inclined to hold a grudge against those who are lucky enough to still have union advocacy.  


  • Dotwithaperiod and eternalsummer like this

#420 eternalsummer

eternalsummer

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5149 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 10:53 PM

Yeah, I have no trouble holding a grudge against the generation as a whole, but individuals who take as part of their agreed compensation retirement benefits after a certain age, but still want to work after that age instead of sitting around or travelling or volunteering or whatever - I can't have a grudge against them, they're just doing the best they can.

 

I mean, you have to figure that because of market dynamics, if they hadn't gotten a guaranteed $x pension after Y years of work, they would have gotten higher salaries.  Granted, it would have been nice for the people buying the goods or services then to pay for them (in higher salaries at the time) instead of passing the buck to the next generation, but it's not the fault of the people who agreed to the terms and then followed them.


  • MBM and JoJosMom like this

#421 Heigh Ho

Heigh Ho

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12328 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 10:59 PM

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, but the chief of police of my town retired after vesting for retirement, and then turned around and took a job with the sheriff's department.  He pointed out to us (friends at my tennis club) that since they have a different retirement system, he can vest there and augment his benefits.  <shrug.>  

 

I don't view it as immoral, since he's following the rules.  And police work is dangerous no matter how you slice it, so I don't begrudge him a generous pension.  But it's also not an ideal situation for taxpayers.  

 

I think if we had stronger unions and more widespread participation, we'd be less inclined to hold a grudge against those who are lucky enough to still have union advocacy.  

 

Agree rules need to be changed. A person with a 401k cannot withdraw without penalty at the age these gov't people are 'retiring' and drawing their tax free pension, even with a hardship withdrawal (there are a few exceptions like death).   The intent of a government pension was not a tax free deferred compensation plan.


Edited by Heigh Ho, 12 February 2018 - 11:19 PM.

  • creekland and regentrude like this

#422 Dotwithaperiod

Dotwithaperiod

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5836 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 09:23 AM

Agree rules need to be changed. A person with a 401k cannot withdraw without penalty at the age these gov't people are 'retiring' and drawing their tax free pension, even with a hardship withdrawal (there are a few exceptions like death). The intent of a government pension was not a tax free deferred compensation plan.

Wait, these pensions are not all tax free, right? My husband retired when he was in his mid fifties( age + time) with a state gov’t pension. It’s taxed. We also pay NY taxes on the TX retirement.
Many people, back then, in the county retired when eligible, waited a few months, then took another position in the county. The person who gave the “you’re retired, now what?” seminar suggested it, as most of these govt pensions were much less than their salary had been.
NM. I get what you’re saying about tax free. Still don’t understand your incessant complaining about how high on the hog the ungrateful retirees in your area are living.
Perhaps if the economy didn’t suck so much people could live off their pensions that they deserve. I’m out, really sick of the constant complaints of boomers messing up you younger hard working citizens.

Edited by Dotwithaperiod, 13 February 2018 - 09:35 AM.

  • Kinsa and eternalsummer like this

#423 Heigh Ho

Heigh Ho

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12328 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:19 AM

Wait, these pensions are not all tax free, right? My husband retired when he was in his mid fifties( age + time) with a state gov’t pension. It’s taxed. We also pay NY taxes on the TX retirement.
Many people, back then, in the county retired when eligible, waited a few months, then took another position in the county. The person who gave the “you’re retired, now what?” seminar suggested it, as most of these govt pensions were much less than their salary had been.
NM. I get what you’re saying about tax free. Still don’t understand your incessant complaining about how high on the hog the ungrateful retirees in your area are living.
Perhaps if the economy didn’t suck so much people could live off their pensions that they deserve. I’m out, really sick of the constant complaints of boomers messing up you younger hard working citizens.

 

 

 

Me, I understand the people who are complaining. Let's do the test of fairness and turn the table...you contribute to my 401k to make up for my losses when the market is down.. and I get to quit what I do annually -- pay more tax to fund state and local pensions when the market is down.  Perhaps then you will understand why working families are fleeing NY, saying you are bleeding them dry.  Do some research, instead of dismissing the people you are starving. At the minimum, call the gov's office and figure out why NY now has a property tax cap.  Figure out why compensation for a state job is, by the gov's own admission, over 10% more than what nongovt pays.  Figure out why medical is the highest portion of the state budget.  Then naval gaze..why do you want to starve your grandchildren so much they can't afford the rent, their teachers cant get the job done, and they have handouts for food?


Edited by Heigh Ho, 13 February 2018 - 10:20 AM.


#424 MBM

MBM

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3758 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:24 AM

Rules about collecting pensions and rehiring are often complicated and vary from plan to plan. Some rehired retirees do not continue receiving their pension after being rehired. It just depends how things are written up.

Keep in mind that the employees pay into their pension funds. They receive less of a salary because a portion goes toward funding their pensions.

It’s also not unusual for military to accept a job after retiring and draw both a pension and a salary. I don’t have a problem with that.
  • Kinsa, creekland, JoJosMom and 1 other like this

#425 MBM

MBM

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3758 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:37 AM

in the private sector pensions have been phased out or are in that process.
The 401K with match is the "new" pension.


Yes, several decades ago pensions were affected by ERISA which led to no choice but to phase out many private pension plans.
  • JoJosMom likes this

#426 luuknam

luuknam

    From The Neverlands

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8073 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:38 AM

I think I just don't see it so much as a loophole, since it's so simple a kid could think of it. As opposed to some loopholes, which require a CPA to do some very creative thinking - yeah, I'm not real happy about people using those kinds of loopholes, since they really weren't intended to work that way, and the people benefiting are by definition people who can afford to throw money at fancy CPAs. 

 

I'm also getting the impression we're thinking of different kinds of people - I'm mostly envisioning people who are 65+, who either want/need to work more, or who were begged by their employer to please work more, and military people, who are younger, but who get those benefits because it's a high risk job that doesn't pay enough otherwise where the military doesn't even want 50yo foot soldiers. If people in other careers like being a principal are retiring way before the age of 65 and getting a pension, then I think the terms of that pension were off - why was it written in such a way that they could retire at, say, 50 and draw a pension? (I don't know what age y'all are thinking of, I just get the impression that some of y'all are talking about people significantly younger than 65 who were not in a high risk, physically demanding occupation like the military)


  • Kinsa, creekland and eternalsummer like this

#427 Kinsa

Kinsa

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10091 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 11:15 AM

It’s also not unusual for military to accept a job after retiring and draw both a pension and a salary. I don’t have a problem with that.


Thank you.
  • GoodGrief, RootAnn, flyingaway and 1 other like this

#428 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24940 posts

Posted 13 February 2018 - 11:23 AM

I'm also getting the impression we're thinking of different kinds of people - I'm mostly envisioning people who are 65+, who either want/need to work more, or who were begged by their employer to please work more, and military people, who are younger, but who get those benefits because it's a high risk job that doesn't pay enough otherwise where the military doesn't even want 50yo foot soldiers. If people in other careers like being a principal are retiring way before the age of 65 and getting a pension, then I think the terms of that pension were off - why was it written in such a way that they could retire at, say, 50 and draw a pension? (I don't know what age y'all are thinking of, I just get the impression that some of y'all are talking about people significantly younger than 65 who were not in a high risk, physically demanding occupation like the military)

 

Yes, this is what I think we all agree on.  The original post talking about it had a school superintendent who retired drawing 100% of his pay as a pension, but never quit working the same job so suddenly got a raise of 100% by keeping his paycheck coming in too.

 

It's 100% different than those who retire and find a different job or who opt for part time at a part time salary or similar.  Those are legit.  The former, I suspect, was never the intention of that retirement system.


  • Hoggirl, frogger, Heigh Ho and 2 others like this

#429 Jazzy

Jazzy

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 213 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:14 PM

Ds just got an email from YALE with the subject line, “Yale is affordable!” Hahahaha! He is not even close to having the stats to get into Yale, and we can in no way afford it. Made me think of this thread!
  • Vida Winter, RootAnn, DawnM and 3 others like this

#430 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24940 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:30 PM

Ds just got an email from YALE with the subject line, “Yale is affordable!” Hahahaha! He is not even close to having the stats to get into Yale, and we can in no way afford it. Made me think of this thread!

 

Getting in is one thing and many schools really try to get applicants even if they have very little or no chance for admission as that downs their acceptance rate (a positive thing in their eyes).

 

However, Yale is well known as being a school that gives much better than average financial assistance.  They have the endowment to do so.  For the truly middle class (meaning 200K or less if I recall it correctly) who can get admitted, they could easily be among the least expensive options if one doesn't opt for a full ride at a less selective place.

 

If you feel up to playing around, run their NPC and see how it compares.  I'm curious to know if what used to be true from my college searching days still is.  At our school kids rarely are up to Yale's caliber.  I can't recall any who have actually applied there even when they had the stats.  Popular Ivies are Cornell (most popular), U Penn, and probably Princeton.


  • daijobu likes this

#431 JanetC

JanetC

    Hive Mind Level 2 Worker: Nurse Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2691 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 04:32 PM

A pension is rarely 100 percent of salary. Many public employees are underpaid compared to private industry (my state legislature skipped funding raises during the recession for example). I'm not sure this is a "get rich" scheme.

I don't have a huge problem with a state-wage-scale teacher doing this, but the superintendent usually has a custom contract, so their financial situation should be different.

#432 Jazzy

Jazzy

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 213 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 07:23 PM

Getting in is one thing and many schools really try to get applicants even if they have very little or no chance for admission as that downs their acceptance rate (a positive thing in their eyes).

However, Yale is well known as being a school that gives much better than average financial assistance. They have the endowment to do so. For the truly middle class (meaning 200K or less if I recall it correctly) who can get admitted, they could easily be among the least expensive options if one doesn't opt for a full ride at a less selective place.

If you feel up to playing around, run their NPC and see how it compares. I'm curious to know if what used to be true from my college searching days still is. At our school kids rarely are up to Yale's caliber. I can't recall any who have actually applied there even when they had the stats. Popular Ivies are Cornell (most popular), U Penn, and probably Princeton.

I said Yale, but just went and checked and it was from Harvard. I did run the NPC, and the COA was only about $10K more than our state flagship. I guess that is a good deal if you have the stats and get in.

Ds received quite a bit of mail from schools he doesn’t have the stats for. I am so glad I’ve researched enough to know better.

Edited by Jazzy, 14 February 2018 - 07:24 PM.

  • RootAnn and creekland like this

#433 8FillTheHeart

8FillTheHeart

    Alice or Mad Hatter or maybe a little of both

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14390 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:17 PM

This post demonstrates just how out of whack some of the formulas are
Http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/21202501/#Comment_21202501

The AOTC issue seems crazy.

Fwiw, please excuse the gazillion mistakes in my recent posts. My grandkids have been here almost 2 weeks and I have multitasking beyond my ability to actually multitask. :)

Edited by 8FillTheHeart, 14 February 2018 - 08:17 PM.

  • MerryAtHope likes this

#434 eternalsummer

eternalsummer

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5149 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:37 PM

But if you can get into Harvard, you can likely get close to a full ride from your state flagship (depending on your state, of course), or another state's state flagship.


  • Joker likes this

#435 Jazzy

Jazzy

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 213 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:43 PM

But if you can get into Harvard, you can likely get close to a full ride from your state flagship (depending on your state, of course), or another state's state flagship.


True!

#436 creekland

creekland

    Retired homeschooler!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24940 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:35 PM

But if you can get into Harvard, you can likely get close to a full ride from your state flagship (depending on your state, of course), or another state's state flagship.

 

There are quite a few places that offer attractive merit aid for top stat students hoping to get them to attend their schools instead, BUT they're often highly competitive (just as admission to highly selective schools are).  Some states offer automatic full rides, but not all of them.  I know ours don't.  Even U Alabama - a known financial safety for top stat kids - came in higher for my lad than the school he attended (which combined merit and need based aid for him) and I've read that UA has since cut their guaranteed aid even more.



#437 Jazzy

Jazzy

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 213 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:19 PM

Actually, I saw when checking e-mail tonight that there WAS one that said "Yale is affordable!" There was another that said, "You can afford Harvard."

 

The one from Yale linked to the "Quick Cost Estimator."  It came back $5,000 cheaper than Harvard.

 

I guess these schools really need our apps to lower their admission rates! 

 


  • creekland and JanetC like this

#438 Arcadia

Arcadia

    Slacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17322 posts

Posted 14 February 2018 - 11:56 PM

The one from Yale linked to the "Quick Cost Estimator." It came back $5,000 cheaper than Harvard.

The Yale’s Quick Cost Estimator came back with three different numbers for me, a Low, Best and High estimate. They did ask for a home equity estimate based on whatever Zillow estimate my house is worth subtract the outstanding mortgage amount.

The Low estimate includes a $23,750 Scholarship/Grant and $2,850 Student Work-Study
The Best estimate includes a $7,450 Scholarship/Grant and $2,850 Student Work-Study
The High estimate is $71,000 Student and Parent Contribution

I think UC (California) merit scholarships is need based as well and not merit only. My kids aren’t interested in the East Coast but it’s still fun to run some estimators and see the numbers.

Edited by Arcadia, 14 February 2018 - 11:57 PM.

  • Jazzy likes this

#439 Mabelen

Mabelen

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2121 posts

Posted 15 February 2018 - 05:03 PM

The Yale’s Quick Cost Estimator came back with three different numbers for me, a Low, Best and High estimate. They did ask for a home equity estimate based on whatever Zillow estimate my house is worth subtract the outstanding mortgage amount.

The Low estimate includes a $23,750 Scholarship/Grant and $2,850 Student Work-Study
The Best estimate includes a $7,450 Scholarship/Grant and $2,850 Student Work-Study
The High estimate is $71,000 Student and Parent Contribution

I think UC (California) merit scholarships is need based as well and not merit only. My kids aren’t interested in the East Coast but it’s still fun to run some estimators and see the numbers.

UC merit scholarships vary depending on each individual campus. My dd has a merit scholarship that is not need based. We are full pay at UCs.

ETA The UCs are, in general, not terribly generous with merit scholarships if there is no financial need. Some campuses give a little more money than others. UCSD has the Jacobs Scholarship for engineering which offers a full ride. I know someone who is about to graduate as a Jacobs scholar and they have no financial need.

Edited by Mabelen, 15 February 2018 - 07:45 PM.

  • Hoggirl likes this

#440 Hoggirl

Hoggirl

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5119 posts

Posted Today, 10:41 AM

UPDATE on friends' daughter's outcome:

Daughter will be attending McPherson in Kansas. I was unfamiliar with it, but it is a small (700 students) LAC in Kansas. COA is about $38,000. She received a $14,000 per year academic scholarship, and I'm guessing around $11,000 in an athletic scholarship. She will be playing Middle for their volleyball team. It is an NAIA school. Mom says her cost to attend right now is $12,500 per year, but she is now in the pool to be a Presidential Scholar which could yield her more academic money. Her parents gave her a "pile" of $10,000 per year, so even if she receives no additional scholarship money, her debt load will be below Stafford amounts. She has to maintain a 3.2 to keep her academic scholarship. They didn't have her desired degree, but they offer a design-your-own option.

I would have some concerns, but at least she got to go OOS, which was important to her. Entire school is smaller than her graduating high school class. Admission standards seem low, graduation rates seem low, endowment seems low, etc. I hope it all works out for her and she is happy there going forward.
  • chiguirre, RootAnn, Jazzy and 2 others like this