I'm pretty sure that ultramarina's family isn't a prime example of welfare freeloading.

I think that what she's saying is that without programs like Questbridge and need-based aid at high $$ colleges, her kids would have ZERO chance at a high-priced college, and that with it, they almost certainly won't if she were adding her income to the household (because they wouldn't qualify, but would still be below the income level which would permit them to pay out of pocket).

Similarly, we have a bind like this in our household. We would be in the original article/study's higher group if I worked full time. But we don't for several very good reasons, and most of them have absolutely NOTHING to do with wanting a free ride for anything.

Unfortunately, that leaves us in the unenviable position of not being able to afford 30K a year in college costs (period) but well above an income level which could qualify DD for 'need-based' aid (at least according to many "college estimates"-- which, by the way, are NOT necessarily standardized, just so that everyone knows that, nor do they have to account for high medical expenses, etc. It's actually a sort of crazy formula that assumes that everyone has the same set of life-circumstances to work from).

So yes, I think that UM's assessment that she'd like to avoid being in the same bind is completely reasonable.

There is definitely a "sour spot" in the UMC in terms of earnings and college purchasing power. We're in it.

It is probably not coincidence that this is where massive push/tiger-parenting begins in earnest in the SES, either. Parents in similar circumstances know that ONLY merit aid is on the table, and they will do pretty much anything to distinguish their kids from everyone else in the fight for a share of that pie.


Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.