UChicago COA now > $80,000 per year

[Hoggirl]

https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/7/15/most-expensive-college/

Quote from the article: 

Manier also noted that the University “guarantees free tuition for families with incomes under $125,000,” and the “average loan indebtedness across all graduating students is under $7,000.” Beginning with the Class of 2023, the University also guarantees “families earning less than $60,000 (with typical assets) have full tuition, fees, room and board covered by financial aid.”

I’m assuming the “with typical assets” also applies to the $125,000 demarcation for free tuition as well, though that is not explicitly stated. I would be curious to know how that term is defined. 

There is a link within the article to another article about the increase of room and board.  For the 2019 - 2020 school year, that amount is listed at over $17,000 per year. 

[chiguirre]

I guess someone will pay it, but it won't be us. At a certain point, even status-conscious consumers will start to question if a bachelor's degree from a name school is worth $200 K more than a bachelor's degree from a state flagship.

At this point, they've effectively priced upper middle class families out of highly selective private colleges. Because someone making $200,000/year will not be able to pay $80,000 in COA for 4 years x # of kids. It's just not feasible. I wonder if foreign students and the 1% can really make up for the lack of families willing to pay $40,000/year but not $80,000?

[Lecka]

I think so many people only have one or two kids, or their first kid gets accepted and they don’t think long-term. 

From reading about people who take out loans, there are a lot of ways people sign on the dotted line whether it is really a good idea or not.  

[Farrar]

Something like 15% of American households make above their 125k income cutoff (assuming that the income cutoff is the only asset they're looking at... if you start bringing in home values, that's another matter). That's a lot, but... they've decided to rob the rich at the top and pay for everyone else. The upper middle class are squeezed out because they had to do it somehow.

It dismays me too. And yeah, I think the tide is turning against these costs. But I'm no longer surprised.

[JoJosMom]

Holy cow.

Honestly, I don't even know why the selective colleges even call these numbers "cost of attendance" when it's really the cost of attendance for upper middle class and above. The truth is that tuition and costs are assessed on a sliding scale. And, much like the disaster area that is medical care and insurance reimbursement rates, no one really has any clue any more what the true cost (or value) of the service really is.

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by JoJosMom

[catz]

I always think it is interesting looking at some of the numbers behind admissions.  Schools love to tout how generous they are but 10% of the student body  at UChicago earn greater than 630K (the 1%) and 58% are from the top 20%.  Average family income 134K And UChicago is one of the more generous, inclusive elites.  If you look at Dartmouth, the average family income is 200K, 21% are from the top 1% (> 630K) and 69% are from the top 20%.  

Anyway, when I look at these numbers I have a pretty hard time believing schools are truly "need blind".  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html

I also think the ED process tends to skew to and benefit the wealthy the most

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/16/6982235/early-admissions-to-colleges-help-kids-who-dont-need-it

Our EFC is also substantially over 1/3  our gross salary and we live in a relatively HCOL/high tax area.  That wasn't happening here either.  We actually toured UChicago and it was my kid's favorite.  Oh well.  

[...................]

So basically like Ferrar said, they are robbing the rich and upper middle class who go to this school, to pay for the middle class and poor kids to go to college. 

 

[kokotg]

1 hour ago, FuzzyCatz said:

I always think it is interesting looking at some of the numbers behind admissions.  Schools love to tout how generous they are but 10% of the student body  at UChicago earn greater than 630K (the 1%) and 58% are from the top 20%.  Average family income 134K And UChicago is one of the more generous, inclusive elites.  If you look at Dartmouth, the average family income is 200K, 21% are from the top 1% (> 630K) and 69% are from the top 20%.  

Anyway, when I look at these numbers I have a pretty hard time believing schools are truly "need blind".  

 

 

I think there are lots of ways for schools to guess which kids have significant financial need and which don't without actually looking at their financial aid forms (even if it only factors into their decisions subconsciously). Common app has zip code and parents' professions on it, for example. Not to mention that many, many of things that make kids appealing to top tier colleges are much more readily available to wealthy kids than to poor kids--prep schools (not just for superior education, but for counselors who have personal relationships with admissions counselors at colleges and a low enough workload to actually work individually with each student), test prep classes, private tutors, expensive extracurriculars....these schools can afford to offer financial aid to low income kids because they know that the system is still set up this way and there will be plenty of very wealthy kids vying for spots. And, of course, even top schools that offer excellent financial aid are rarely need blind. 

[teachermom2834]

I think another wrinkle is how few kids in that under $60,000 price range have had the resources and opportunities available to them to be competitive for admission to U of  Chicago. K-12 education is hardly equal access. How many kids with limited resources are going to have had the test prep courses, extracurriculars, etc to be competitive? Sure there are going to be exceptions but most interesting extracurriculars take financial support. Kids with super high test scores usually have had access to prep services or even just parents that could focus on helping them rather than working multiple jobs. How many schools servicing lower income students have guidance counselors who are focused on helping kids get into elite schools and how many schools in less affluent areas have the AP classes and math teams, etc. How many lower income kids are even going to know this offer exists or how to try for it?

It just rings hollow to me when these schools tout the free tuition under a certain income level. Fine to offer that when they know the number of their admitted students that fit that profile is so low. 

[DawnM]

The hardest part for me is that our salaries, while not bad, have stagnated, but costs keep rising.  

We cannot pay for NYU or UofChicago for our kids.  And even today I talked to my youngest about how much we will pay for college as our max and that anything above that amount, he is responsible for.  My kids know we simply cannot pay $50k per year for 4-5 years for 3 kids.  We need to eat and retire.

[Farrar]

I think it's especially hard on those of us who live in these high COL areas. Like, our household income is also a smidge above that. But we are not as well off as compared to a lot of people here. When I look at other areas, we would be able to save so much more.

[teachermom2834]

I agree. I am actually in a low COL area and the efc is still unrealistic. To think it isn’t adjusted for COL is very unfair. 

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by teachermom2834

[fourisenough]

3 hours ago, teachermom2834 said:

I think another wrinkle is how few kids in that under $60,000 price range have had the resources and opportunities available to them to be competitive for admission to U of  Chicago. K-12 education is hardly equal access. How many kids with limited resources are going to have had the test prep courses, extracurriculars, etc to be competitive? Sure there are going to be exceptions but most interesting extracurriculars take financial support. Kids with super high test scores usually have had access to prep services or even just parents that could focus on helping them rather than working multiple jobs. How many schools servicing lower income students have guidance counselors who are focused on helping kids get into elite schools and how many schools in less affluent areas have the AP classes and math teams, etc. How many lower income kids are even going to know this offer exists or how to try for it?

It just rings hollow to me when these schools tout the free tuition under a certain income level. Fine to offer that when they know the number of their admitted students that fit that profile is so low. 

My thoughts exactly!

[alewife]

19 hours ago, kokotg said:

 

I think there are lots of ways for schools to guess which kids have significant financial need and which don't without actually looking at their financial aid forms (even if it only factors into their decisions subconsciously). Common app has zip code and parents' professions on it, for example. Not to mention that many, many of things that make kids appealing to top tier colleges are much more readily available to wealthy kids than to poor kids--prep schools (not just for superior education, but for counselors who have personal relationships with admissions counselors at colleges and a low enough workload to actually work individually with each student), test prep classes, private tutors, expensive extracurriculars....these schools can afford to offer financial aid to low income kids because they know that the system is still set up this way and there will be plenty of very wealthy kids vying for spots. And, of course, even top schools that offer excellent financial aid are rarely need blind. 

I agree.  In addition to the ways you mentioned, the colleges are receiving the student's  adversity score from the College Board when the student submits an SAT or ACT score.  (I don't understand how this is legal since it is not disclosed to the student, but I digress...)

If you look at the Common Data Set for schools that state they are need blind, the percent of full-pay students does not vary by more than a fraction of a percent from year to year.  If they were truly "need blind", I would expect more variation in the number of full-pay students from year to year.  

[Gobblygook]

20 hours ago, Calming Tea said:

So basically like Ferrar said, they are robbing the rich and upper middle class who go to this school, to pay for the middle class and poor kids to go to college. 

 

This is exactly true. I myself went to UChicago. We have four kids and have an upper middle class income. There is no way we can pay for UChicago or any other private university, for that matter, for four children, even though we are saving. It’s not worth $200K+ in loans when they can get the same degree elsewhere for much less. I’ve worked in both public and private universities and believe strongly in the mission of small liberal arts colleges - but I can’t justify the cost. My oldest son, age 14, is already thinking of going to Canada for college where we get reciprocity due to our state of residence, and costs are unbelievably low. 

[catz]

2 minutes ago, Gobblygook said:

This is exactly true. I myself went to UChicago. We have four kids and have an upper middle class income. There is no way we can pay for UChicago or any other private university, for that matter, for four children, even though we are saving. It’s not worth $200K+ in loans when they can get the same degree elsewhere for much less. I’ve worked in both public and private universities and believe strongly in the mission of small liberal arts colleges - but I can’t justify the cost. My oldest son, age 14, is already thinking of going to Canada for college where we get reciprocity due to our state of residence, and costs are unbelievably low. 

We live in the upper Midwest and Canadian schools are becoming more and more popular.  Great value!

[...................]

29 minutes ago, FuzzyCatz said:

We live in the upper Midwest and Canadian schools are becoming more and more popular.  Great value!

 

Wow, I would assume they'd gouge American students for every penny

Edited July 25, 2019 by Calming Tea

[fleighton]

If it makes a difference, I just looked up Financial Aid for University of Chicago, and put the household income as $200k, and it estimated it would offer the accepted student a grant of $41,800 per year.

[regentrude]

My DD attended U Chicago, and we received very generous need based aid that made U Chicago less expensive than an out of state public uni. UC Boulder would have cost more. If they now offer free tuition for family incomes under 125k, they have upped their financial aid since then.

ETA: The bar graph presented in the article is a bad representation of the data, since the axis does not start from zero, and so the differences appear exaggerated compared to the absolute values. I would not let a student present scientific results like this.

Edited July 25, 2019 by regentrude

[Hoggirl]

9 hours ago, fleighton said:

If it makes a difference, I just looked up Financial Aid for University of Chicago, and put the household income as $200k, and it estimated it would offer the accepted student a grant of $41,800 per year.

 

Did you use their NPC or something else?

[arliemaria]

Can someone explain to me why the income standards like that of U of Chicago says for a family with an income of 125 or University of Washington in St. Louis 75k (they say no loans will be apart of the financial package) is not based on income/family size? This makes no sense to me. A family of two (single parent plus child) with 75k vs. a family of 6 with annual income of 75k are totally different scenarios. Our student loans, taxes, and health insurance premium is a sliding scale based on income/family size.

[8filltheheart]

@arliemariaThose numbers are just reference pts for mass media. Every family's financial profile is going to be evaluated individually. I would also assume that somewhere in the small print that those numbers are accompanied by phrasing of something like "with typical assets."  That income level isn't guaranteed x. It is that generally speaking those income levels have minimal assets.

FWIW, I also wouldn't put much stock in the no loan comment. It simply means that they don't package in loans to meet need. It doesn't mean that the family won't need loans. Those are 2 very different comments. For example, say that the family receives free tuition, they still need to pay $17,000 in room, board, expenses. Unless that family can pay that amt in cash every yr, they will be taking out loans from somewhere to pay. 

Colleges "determine" parental contribution. It is a "magical" (insert complete snark) dollar amt that universities determine parents have readily available to pay for little Johnnie's college attendance. It may not represent a  family's real life ability to pay at all. And whether or not family size makes a difference depends on multiple factors (the one that increases aid the most is overlapping college enrollment (dual enrollment does not count.) So a family with 4 kids close in age with overlapping college students will have a much different total cost than a family of 4 kids spread out in age even if their financial picture is relatively the same otherwise.

Need-based aid can be a mixed bag. It can be great and allow a student to attend. Or it can be a joke that leaves a huge gap in what a student needs to attend. There is no simple answer. For our family, need-based aid formulas are a hardship. No way we can pay our parental contribution based on FA formulas bc our kids are spread out in age. Our kids have to seek merit aid.  

Edited July 27, 2019 by 8FillTheHeart

[regentrude]

1 hour ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

For our family, need-based aid formulas are a hardship. No way we can pay our parental contribution based on FA formulas bc our kids are spread out in age. Our kids have to seek merit aid.  

(Comment not directed at you, 8FillTheHeart, but I want to clarify this for people not familiar with the process:)

and needing merit aid means forgoing the extremely selective colleges because there is no merit aid at a school that only takes applicants with outstanding test scores and academic performance. They all have merit if they got in. You need to look at schools further down the tier where the student stands out academically so they can receive merit aid.

[8filltheheart]

32 minutes ago, regentrude said:

(Comment not directed at you, 8FillTheHeart, but I want to clarify this for people not familiar with the process:)

and needing merit aid means forgoing the extremely selective colleges because there is no merit aid at a school that only takes applicants with outstanding test scores and academic performance. They all have merit if they got in. You need to look at schools further down the tier where the student stands out academically so they can receive merit aid.

Absolutely. Also, parents should be aware that it is unlikely they will lower their contribution by outside scholarships. Schools will replace institutional grants $ to $ with the scholarship $ with zero net gain for you.

[teachermom2834]

37 minutes ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

Absolutely. Also, parents should be aware that it is unlikely they will lower their contribution by outside scholarships. Schools will replace institutional grants $ to $ with the scholarship $ with zero net gain for you.

Yes. The company dh works for offers a significant scholarship to dependents of employees ($5000/yr for up to five years). 

My next ds will likely win this scholarship. If he was attending a “needs met” school it would not help out at all. But if he attends a state school that is going to come off of his bottom line. We are only looking at merit aid schools for him. We would hate to leave all that potential aid out there not impacting our bottom line.

To each their own, as always. Being informed is key. I post the same things over and over here mainly because I know there are people trying to figure it out and sometimes you have to read “private scholarships reduce your financial aid” more than once before it sinks in. It is counterintuitive.

In fact, the FB parents page for our second ds is currently full with parents ranting about the school reducing aid here before the fall. This is a public school, not huge financial aid grants at stake but people are seeing aid reduced by such things as outside scholarships, deciding to live at home and commute, etc. things that truly impact need and financial aid programs. People are accusing the school of all kinds of dishonesty and bait and switch etc and it is really just parents not understanding how it works. 🙁

Edited July 27, 2019 by teachermom2834