I thought I would start a new topic on this one.

A study came out that 1/3 of retiring Canadians went back to work because they underestimated the cost of retirement.

Bostonian mentioned his 529 plans and in my own calculations of future financial planning, I estimated (for my grade 4 child) 600K if she takes advantage of her legacy at Harvard and 50-75K if she goes to the U of Toronto (currently a top 20 school in the world). As a parent, this is part of my planning.

The other topic was about free tuition, which was viable in the 60s. City University of NY was free, wasn't the State CA universities have something similar? When the US was at the peak of economic global power and growth provided money. But my father and most of the fathers I know also had defined benefit plans and retired without worry. All of that has changed.

My financial planning takes into account college cost savings just as I plan for retirement. How many people really do that, or when college comes around figure out the loans and then deal with it?

And when I say saving, that is part of the budget, so any ideas about housing expenses, vacations, eating out have to take part of an overall budget so I can pay for those college costs. I have a really smart and talented kid that can go to college and be anything she wants, so part of my responsibility as a parent is to plan for that. Just if she was really disabled and I had to plan for her care after I was gone.

How many plan early on?

Wren, Harvard is one of the more affordable schools, unless you make a ton of money (and then you can afford it without aid).

https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/fact-sheet

I have heard of some folks with only one kid or two very close in age joke that they would quit their jobs a few years before the kid goes to college and then work as a Wal-Mart greeter, making just enough to get by. This is actually not a bad strategy - make just under $65K a year and have the entire $60K COA covered.

ok, is that your plan?

We make just enough to get by, already, so we won't even have to do anything drastic! Unfortunately, that usually puts us just into the middle range where we don't qualify for aid for anything but don't make enough to do whatever it is without it. But at least Harvard wouldn't be asking us for anything, anyway.

Heck of a situation that would be -- "no, we couldn't afford to send DS to the state school, so he had to go to Harvard."

They look at assets.

Assets are easier to hide than income, not that I am saying doing such is ethical or legal.

Hey-- we've done the calculation here.

Stanford is WAY more affordable than the UW for us. About 18K annually "more affordable."

How wacky is THAT?

Perhaps, but the behavior of the colleges with respect to cranking up tuition is not always ethical, either (you may recall a scandal in the 80s. Administrators from the elite colleges were meeting annually and were basically fixing prices at their institutions so that they all kept pace with each other). I suspect that this type of behavior is not isolated.

In a situation like this one, hiding assets strikes me as being a reasonable reaction. I knew someone whose family had to take out a second mortgage on their farm to pay for college.

They do look at some assets, and some schools require the CSS Profile (which provides info beyond FAFSA). Of course, if you don't save anything in a 529 and you spend it all on "stuff", you don't have assets.

I'm sort of only half joking because I have seen folks that scrimped and saved for the kids' education, and they don't get anything for financial aid. The folks who spend every last dollar get a lot more. Doesn't seem right, but that's how it is.

And I'm only half joking about being a Wal-Mart greeter. Think about it - if you have a family income of $120K-$130K, you aren't saving $60K of that each year for college (maybe you would get some aid, but still would be expected to pay $30-35K/year). So if both parents make $60K/year, one is working just to send the kid to school. And it may be tough to squeeze $35K out of the $60K salary after taxes and expenses relating to work. In some areas of the country, you could easily survive on $65K (not here, but many other places).

Maybe after we get the first two through college we'll be greeters when the last one goes to school (first kid is a freshman, second is in 10th, third is in 4th).

And we do have 529 plans for the kids, though I have mixed feelings about this. We started middle kid's plan late because I declared that she was not college material when she was 4. I certainly wasn't on this forum then...didn't expect her to be "gifted".

Please don't rely on the legacy to "ensure" admission. Remember that legacies typically only get a "boost" if they apply EA/ED. Stanford legacy does provide a boost - last I heard was legacy admit rate around 14%, non-legacy 7%.

Better chances if you are a recruited athlete with decent GPA and SAT. We can't rely on the athlete thing at a school like Stanford as mine are not DI material, but it can help at DIII schools. And other talents can help, such as music, art, etc.

My eldest passed up free tuition at a couple of decent schools (merit based on GPA & SAT). I'm hoping my youngest holds true to her word that she'll take up a free tuition offer at a local university if she has the scores.

We started saving as soon as DS was born. I'm at home with DS, so we're a single professional income household for now, but we're targeting payment for DS' full undergraduate tuition, room and board, and an entertainment allowance at a Canadian university. The American prices are, frankly, astronomical by comparison, and I'm not convinced that they carry any more weight than a top Canadian university domestically.

If DS is anything like us, he'll have an opportunity to do a graduate degree wherever he likes, at little to no personal cost. I see that as the appropriate time for foreigners to target an American education if there is uncertainty around the family's ability to pay out of pocket, as could be the case with us if I remain a stay-at-home parent for an extended duration.

"Maximizing Your Aid Eligibility"
http://www.finaid.org/fafsa/maximize.phtml

I can't see the logic of a 529 plan for someone like me with a moderate income and only one child. I put my savings into a Roth IRA. I can use the money for DD's college expenses, but any unused portion stays there for my retirement.

Yes, one should usually put the maximum (or as much as you can) in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, i.e. 401k, 403b, 457, IRA, before putting anything into a 529 plan, or regular taxable account, since retirement account assets aren't included for the means tests. (These comments apply to USA.)

However be aware that Roth withdrawals will count as parental income for FAFSA, even though it is not taxable income.

They aren't included for the means test, but then they also aren't available to pay tuition. Even among our kids, you can't count on your kid getting into one of the top 5 or so schools that have GREAT financial aid. At almost all the rest your kid is going to have loans as part of their FA package (so they aren't just "giving" you money). Also, income counts for a whole lot more than assets -- so as mentioned above, for the calendar year before your kiddo applies (ie, 2013 tax year for 2014 fall attendance), it is a good year to show low income. But you have to keep showing low income for the next few years, or you lose the need based aid.

If there are any young parents reading, we started saving by putting our pre-tax day care "refunds" right into college savings. Even after divorce with minimal help from my ex, I have been able to put two kids through private colleges because we saved early and put in quite a bit. If you have the discipline, it is a lot safer plan than counting on Harvard or Stanford admission.

Like Portia, we've had to make some very difficult decisions re: family income and wage earners in the household.

It's had consequences-- we have neither the retirement nor college savings that we would otherwise have had. Our house is still not paid off.

We've figured for the past five to seven years that I'd simply return to work AT the time of college in order to PAY for college attendance. That is, we always figured that my income would be used for that purpose, and maybe solely for that purpose, given what costs are.

In the end, though, this wound up being a factor against elite/expensive private schools because DD was clearly feeling pressure to make that kind of cash outlay and sacrifice (splitting the household) "worth it."

I hadn't counted on her feeling like that, I guess.

What exactly are you referring to here?

We established 529s at birth for both kids. We are sending them to public school (gifted program) as long as that makes sense academically, in order to be able to put more $ away for college.

Where they go will depend on their grades, their SAT scores, their athletic achievements and how much we will be able to save.

I managed to put myself through with a combination of loans, some small help from my mom and waiting tables. I stopped and restarted and did all of this at a state school 20 years ago. I'm pretty sure tuition is still reasonable following that model.

I somehow ended up with a job at a major bank that enabled me to pay my loans off in two years...still not quite sure how it all happened, a combination of timing and luck I suppose, but I did it with a humanities degree from a state school.

My husband had undergrad and MBA paid for by his parents.

My kids will get more help from us than I did from my parents, but the details will have to be figured out as we get closer.

We planned early on BUT then I stopped working (long story..it wasn't entirely intentional) and although our lives got a lot less hectic saving for college went out the window. We have some money that is to be used for retirement & college but because of the economy have been trying not to break into it.

We currently have a daughter in private university (one that is less expensive than Harvard but more than public university), and a son who is a freshman. Luckily my parents did a better job at saving and are willing to help us. (My parents did other things to help my two brothers, and they figure it's better to help us now.) We did pay for about 1/2 of my daughters first year with money we had put in a college fund in her name.

I expect that DS14 will end up at public university. A large research university is probably a better fit for him. My daughter is not gifted but has LD's and really needed a place where class sizes were small with teacher that are in it 100% for the teaching. If my parents keep helping us through my daughters BA we should be able to afford a public university for my son.

Not included in the means test = FAFSA pretends you do not have this money, it is not considered in the calculation of your Estimated Family Contribution (EFC). Means = financial resources or assets

Not available to pay tuition = Withdrawals from 401K accounts are typically not allowed until age 59-1/2. Withdrawing from 401K accounts early typically incurs a hefty penalty. When 401K funds are withdrawn to make them available to pay tuition, the amount of the withdrawal is taxable income, and is used in calculating the EFC.

We're not doing any college finance planning. While I do have two college degrees, I'm a stay at home mom and my husband is a trucker. If I went to work in the next few years, we'd spend more money on care for our special needs kids than I'd bring home ... or it would balance out but in the end we'd be worse off. So we're doing it all on one working income, while living in a fairly expensive area (northern Illinois). If the boys want to go to college some day (and we don't push for it unless it's what THEY want and take responsibility for), they will have to have the smarts (they do NOT have the athletic ability! lol) and grades to get in with as much financial aid (and by that I don't mean loans) as possible ... coupled with workstudy / resident assistant / or other on or off campus jobs that will pay for most or all their remaining expenses. Does not matter what school as long as it's a decent quality / safe school. If they have the will, they can do it.

Your kids won't really have a choice on the loans... very few colleges give need based aid packages that don't have at least federal loans as part of the package. Also, regardless of whether you intend to pay or not, the colleges will require your financial information and assume you will help out as they believe you are able (which may truly not be much, but they will ask for the information). It used to be true that kids could work their way through college without parental help when we were that age, but it is far more difficult today. Any help parents can give is a pretty huge benefit. There are ways to keep college expenses down - living at home and attending state schools are the most obvious ones, although that depends on your state. Even in-state tuition is climbing pretty high in a lot of states.

Yes, indigo, what I meant was that most tax-deferred savings options for retirement lock up the money so you could not use it for college expenses. And I have to say that schools that use the CSS Profile do look at those assets -- I don't believe most count it as money you could spend on college, but they do look at what you contribute during the years you kid is in college and add at least some of that back into what they would expect you to be able to pay for tuition. I am not an expert on the calculation (go to the financial aid forum on College Confidential to find those wizards), though.

We plan on helping both DDs with post secondary education and have been saving in general for both of them. I plan on returning to work within the next five years to help with our financial goals. Hopefully we will be in a position to pay for both of their entire tuitions when the time comes however, they are being raised with the idea that they have to contribute towards paying for the cost of whatever further schooling they choose.

They will be expected to get summer or after school jobs during high school and university. Some of the money earned from these jobs will go towards tuition or paying for books. We will help them with any shortfall.

We've decided that we will only help in terms of the actual cost of attending school (tuition, other associated fees and books, possibly transportation). We live within commuting distance to several good universities/colleges/trade schools. The girls are free to move out and live on or off campus. As this will be their own choice, it will be their responsibility to pay for residence. They are welcome to stay at home for free.

DH and I both contributed to paying for our educations in various ways (scholarships, bursaries, part time jobs) and we feel that doing so was a positive experience. We want the girls to have the same experience.

I'm pretty sure that at most colleges / universities being an RA still gives you free housing and food ... work studies pay for part of your tuition ... and then there are scholarships. If that doesn't work, there's always the option to go to school part time while working. Quite honestly I consider the 4 years of on campus life a pretty big waste of time and $, basically a high school re-do, so while we might do our best to help out if we think they do deserve it and are working hard for it, we will be leaving it up to them.

I just don't look at school loans as "financial aid" ...to me they are a serious burden, no aid at all. I'd rather my kids spend 8 years going to college part time and be debt free than be done in 4 years and be living on Ramen noodles for the next 20 years.

You can't be an RA as a freshman. And not everyone who applies for an RA position gets one after that. Work study is a federal aid program (you have to fill out the FAFSA, and the college decides whether and how much to award if you meet the qualifications). But work study is not a lot of money usually... Also, at many colleges if they award you a merit scholarship, they just turn around and reduce the need based aid by that amount, so your cost of attendance is the same. Some colleges even do this if you earn outside scholarships (so they knock that amount off your need based aid). It is much, much harder to go to college "on your own" than it used to be.

Regarding loans, the most a student can take out on their own in loans is $5,500 each year freshman and sophomore year, $6,500 junior year, and $7,500 senior year. Total is $25,000. Any loans beyond that require a co-signer (usually a parent). So there is some cap of how much they can take out on their own.

And... sorry, but it seems ridiculous to give up four years of full time earning power with a college education to avoid taking out any loans at all. There are some situations in which really limiting loans make sense -- for example, kids who expect to go to grad school in areas where they typically would need to pay full price with no stipends. Or those who major in areas with very poor employment prospects -- although federal loans have a forgiveness component built in if your income is low over a long period of time. The odds are a whole lot higher of living on Ramen for 20 years for people who don't go to college at all.

We'd prefer DD to go to a university in Europe so we're not planning to save the full cost of a college degree in US. If she decides that she MUST go to Harvard or Stanford then we won't tell her she can't go (we're poor enough that she'll get a full ride) bet we're also not going to do crazy things to increase her odds.

Mana ... that's another option for us too. Dual citizenship means many other options in Europe for our kids too.

I was simplifying. Just naming various options that are out there. I have plenty of friends who have done it and not that long ago.

I do find it important to get out of college debt free if at all possible. Far too many people aren't even using their degrees and the last thing I would want my kids to have to do is paying off loans for something they decide not to do or not be able to find a job in that field.

Yes, dual citizenship comes handy.

There are also some countries in Europe that offers free education to foreign students but the cost of living and lack of FA might make it more expensive at the end.

Stanford Alumni Magazine from Nov/Dec had a good article about just this in one of their recent magazines. They have interesting graphs showing how Applications to Standford (along with other Ivy's) have doubled in the last 10 years. While the acceptance of alumni is about triple of non-alumni that still isn't really great chances.

I'm don't expect that my son will be willing to jump through all the hoops to attract Standford or an Ivy. That is OK with me, I think fit is really the most important thing is choosing a university. The competition for the top schools in the past 10 years has gotten extremly intense requiring students not only get almost perfect grades/SAT's but load of extra curriculars, service and something unusual that makes them stand out.

Okay, if you assume that by "they" intparent means "retirement accounts in general", then "not available to pay tuition" is not true in many cases.

[It is true that if you withdraw from retirement accounts, you pay a 10% penalty (on top of any income taxes that apply, and it is almost always a very bad idea to do this. Also spending money that you need for retirement on something else is also a very bad idea.]

If the parent of the college student is at least 59.5 they can withdraw from retirement accounts penalty free.

For some accounts they can withdraw from those retirement accounts penalty free if they are at least 55, if separated from their employer.

For 457 plans they can withdraw from that retirement accounts penalty free at any age, if separated from their employer.

Roth contributions can be withdrawn at any time penalty free (and tax free).

For the non-Roth ones, the withdrawals will be income which will be taxed (and can affect many other things). And all withdrawals (even Roth ones) will affect FAFSA so you have to do the analysis. A Roth account is a very bad place to do college saving if you are planning to withdraw funds while the student is in college (except maybe the last year).

There is a more indirect sense in which the statement "retirement accounts aren't available to pay tuition" is not really right. Money is fungible, even though it can be place in containers with many restrictions and conditions. If you contribute as much as possible to retirement accounts (rather than directing some of those savings to college savings), then when it comes time to pay for college, your retirement savings picture is stronger, (and your FAFSA assets are less) and you can more afford to pay for college out of your salary, forgoing retirement contributions during those college years if necessary. Having more money in your retirement accounts puts you in a better financial situation overall, and so better able to afford college, using accesible funds, without jeopardizing retirement.

I just saw this edit. Although I can't say for sure what CSS Profile counts, I think what you are referring to is not retirement assets, but retirement contributions in a given year which are not taxable income (unless Roth), but which are added back as untaxed income to give the income figure they use (FAFSA too).

That is pretty realistic. Actually for us, Harvard and its ilk would be affordable, and the local state uni (kid living at home and need/merit aid) would be about equally affordable, though a let down. Most lesser privates, and out of state publics, are simply financially out of reach (though it's worth looking for exceptions). So the choice is either make it to the most elite places, or stay home (and try again for graduate school, which should be essentially free).

-----------------------------------------

Also, loans are not aid, despite what colleges call it. It should be called pretend aid. Some colleges might have a lot of this pretend aid, and others might have little or none. You have to look at the whole package and figure out, bottom line, what you're going to be paying (including interest), and decide if it's worth it, and if it's even affordable. Someone thinking that a loan is really aid, is like someone buying something with a credit card and thinking they're getting it for free. People need at least some basic financial literacy.

That said, while some people recklessly take on too much debt, others are too cautious. There is a place for some manageable debt. If you borrow $5k/year for 4 years, and then get a $50k/year job, you can easily pay off the debt in a year or two.

-----------------------------------------
I think a lot of people would quit their job and then work as a Wal-Mart greeter, if they would make just under $65K a year.

But, seriously, this is what I am seriously considering (except for the Wal-Mart greeter part). I'm seriously considering retiring (early) just before my oldest starts college, and I'm saving like crazy (in retirement accounts) to try to reach that goal. I'd wait and see my situation then, but depending on the college, it may be that the income means test, which can act like an additional 47% "tax", makes working barely worth it. Of course places like Harvard are so cheap, even for modestly above average incomes, that I could afford it even if I did keep working.

There was a study recently that showed kids who had to contribute to the college cost did better than those who got a free ride. Though it probably meant a free ride from the parents, not a scholarship free ride...sorry, time constraints on looking up the study. But it makes me think about teaching my kid the value of money. I had a tuition scholarship (in Canada)and my room and board was about 2000. I could carry a lot of that with my summer job and at U of Western Ontario, I got a part time job teaching skating during the winter months, which led to some hockey players asking me for skating lessons. Between all that, my Canadian university costs were well covered. But I also learned how to provide for myself. I want to teach my daughter that.

Out of curiosity I checked last night couple options and it still IS doable for my kids to go to university for close to free (just depends on what room / board options we would go with). Except they are 5.4 and 3.10 so we have long ways to go and who knows what situation will be like by then! lol If they go to the same still low cost, good quality, midwest university I went to, they can get the whole college experience, a degree in whatever field they choose, and get out debt free with zero to minimum financial constraints on us parents. If they decide to go with more expensive options, then they need to figure out how to get there.

and
Agreed.

Some may say that a planned early retirement with the specific intent to game the system for need-based financial aid for college costs may be unethical, and an example of what some people may resent about a system which seems to help the wealthy and affluent become more so, while syphoning dollars out of the system which were originally intended to help those with "need", not those with "game".

Our current economy is shrinking. Many jobs are being outsourced overseas. Many other positions are changing from full-time (with benefits including health insurance) to part-time (without health insurance or other benefits). There are many good, hard-working people without paid employment. There are many more with part-time jobs which cannot pay for housing plus college. The unemployed and underemployed are negatively impacted by those who seek need-based financial aid for sport.

There is a saying, "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should".

Some people have played the system well, ranging from boasting of the faux divorce (occupying two of several owned residential properties as domiciles), to selling homes and converting proceeds to gold, to living off the grid on a cash basis.

Unfortunately, for some families "ethics" may not be a compelling reason to undertake one course of action and forego another.

I saw that discussed extensively (can't remember if it was on this forum or another) but it was quickly and thoroughly debunked. Basically the author set out to "prove" their pet theory with some shonky analysis, and it quickly became clear that the "study" was just rubbish.

You might seriously look at how financial aid is figured out before you attempt this. Other assets are included in how financial aid is calculated. The FAFSA doesn't look as closely into assets, but many private colleges require more detail that looks more closely into retirement accounts, real estate, etc. And you never know how the feds will change the rules over the years.

Why is no one talking about scholarships. Many private universities, but not the top tier, have very generous scholarships for top bright students. A few schools my daughter & I talked with would give top students (my daughter wasn't one) large merit scholarships AND admission to special honors programs. Just talked with a parent this morning who's daughters have gone this route.

exactly! When I did my quick check into things last night, I realized that if our boys were to go to college now, if they went to my old University where I graduated, and had good grades and ranked among the top couple % of their graduating class (and ACT / SAT), they could very well go tuition-free. The main thing we'd have to figure out would be room and board, which over there wouldn't be as big of a deal as in a larger city.

I also think there are many alternative to school scholarships. DH went to Harvard in 1976. Tuition was $5000. He won a local Newcastle, PA scholarship that paid his tuition for 4 years. They were not expecting Harvard and capped it after he won it, because tuition disparity was different then, I guess.

And he won some other financial awards etc that he had 3 full years free. But he also worked construction during the summer as kids had whatever summer jobs you could get. And he had medical school to pay for after.

I do not know the work involved in getting alternative type of scholarships and aren't there websites where you can search for things that define qualifications and other parameters?

Besides the financial planning, I am also coming up with the plan. I know of MG kid who did really well but had legacy at Princeton and decent soccer skills got into Princeton with engineering. I think a great choice for a girl for entrance. Of course, just like in that Gladwell book, she found herself with all these HG+ kids and had a nervous breakdown in the first semester and took a year off.

The thing about being on this forum is that after the testing and hearing stories, you really know where your kid is at. I know DD's IQ since we had her tested for a gifted preschool, then all the NYC stuff and again for the Toronto gifted school. I know she can get the scores, I know she has the dance at the level Harvard likes, with National ballet school. And as mentioned, I have the U of Toronto as a back up and I have no doubts she will make it there unless she suddenly goes off and becomes a drug addict.

My comment, before I digressed, was that when DH went to Harvard, it wasn't based on parental income. Right now they have that huge endowment. We go into freefall on the market, maybe they won't offer financial aid for anyone accepted making under 65K per annum. Yale had the biggest endowment for a while in the mid decade and then the market blew them up. So counting on today's practices may not work so the whole Walmart greeter plan could go the way of 8 track music.

I remember a forum somewhere about college recently. It seems strange that you have to pay huge amounts for something that doesn't seem to qualify you for anything. Here your four years gets you qualified as a lawyer or an engineer or most of your unpaid medical training whereas over there you have to turn round and attend another school for law etc. I think that is what I understood. Is there any way if enough people complained an alternate system could be set up? Or a review of the current system instigated at government level?

As I understand it, the development of the current secondary and post-secondary educational system has been related to the economy. Part of the educational system is driven based on anticipated job growth, while part of it is based on keeping people busy during a shrinking economy of negative job growth.

During the "Great Depression" in the US, about 1929-1939*, as a means to keep unemployed persons busy there was a surge toward having more people attend high school.

An acquaintance from another country once shared that as the economy tanked, there was rampant degree inflation resulting in a highly educated populace: PhDs held jobs serving fast food, if they were fortunate.

*"It's a recession if your neighbor is unemployed and a depression if you are unemployed."

In the U.S., engineering is an undergrad degree. Many people get an additional master's (or master's-ish degree) that takes a year or two, generally two.

Law is three year degree after undergrad. You can practice immediately after that if you pass the bar exam even if you don't know anything. There is a severe oversupply of lawyers.

Medicine is a four year degree after undergrad, plus additional training that you are compensated for on a limited basis. Once you finish that, you can practice. There is not much of an oversupply of doctors, but it's a strange system.

None of these systems are going to change any time soon because nobody really feels like changing them.

There are a few exceptions, like for the joint law/medicine degree that takes you 6 years after undergrad.

There are also some joint undergrad/medicine degrees that take you six/seven years and you get the undergrad degree and the medical degree.

I personally have a degree in chemical engineering (five years) and a degree in law (three years).

And to this day, the only thing I really got out of either of those two programs was the ability to say that I was "college-educated" and the power to take the bar exam and practice law.

I think there are a few 5 year undergrad/medical degrees or used to be. Jefferson had one in PA and Canada had 6 spots per year in certain schools. Know of a few people who did them in Canada and Jeff.

But you have to be really outstanding to get in.

I posted this earlier. Perhaps it would address your concerns.

"Maximizing Your Aid Eligibility"
http://www.finaid.org/fafsa/maximize.phtml

One thing to keep in mind. If your child is younger some of rules might change before they go to college. It's not a good idea to depend on a strategy, like going back to school yourself.

Among other advice in the section called "Number of Family Members in College", is the suggestion to consider "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap".

That does not seem a compelling or academically sound reason for whole-grade acceleration. Makes one wonder whether any parent has advocated that logic for acceleration to their child's teacher and principal?

Absolutely. The article makes that point in a few places.

Maybe this explains all of those horror stories about accelerations that went badly, though?

My BIL declined to do the Jefferson program because too many of the students were clearly in it for the money. I think he just didn't like Penn State.

It's Penn State's baby.

http://science.psu.edu/premed/premedmed/accelerated-premed-medical

Having no interest in medical school, I paid no attention to it, but I read it in the catalog enough times.

I would expect that parents on this forum would have kids who could do this.

You can also apparently apply to the Penn State Medical School after two years at Penn State. I did not know this.

http://science.psu.edu/premed/eaap

Our boys are 19 months apart and because of the younger one's birthday just before the cut off, they should be 2 years apart in school, but from what we can see, there's a good chance they will both be going to college either at the same time or just a year apart. They are still too little to know what will happen in 12 or 13 years (being 5.5 & 3.10) but I just don't see how especially the younger one could go without skipping. So, if that's the case and we have them both in the same school, we might as well rent them an apartment / house or purchase a small property for them to stay in and save a TON of $ we'd otherwise need for room & board x 2.

There is no evidence that the teaching at the most prestigious schools is better, so two remaining reasons to send one's children to them are to get a more valuable credential and to mingle with smart, well-connected students. I wonder to what extent living off-campus impedes this last goal. OTOH, dorm living could be distracting and a bad influence for some students at some schools.

I found dorm living extremely distracting. There was nowhere to run to get some quiet. Plus I found the off campus living students to be the more "real life" motivated. They were the ones having part time jobs, supporting themselves, and overall serious about what they were doing.

Agreed. This was certainly true at the public universities where I've taught or attended.

I actually wonder if the whole dorm atmosphere is one of the big reasons why so many Freshman struggle with adjusting to college?

There's another consideration: standards and expectations.

I went to college in western Massachusetts. There are 4 colleges in that area, plus one big university (UMASS). The college I attended had very high standards, almost across the board (this was in the 1980s). The standards were also very high at the other two small colleges where I took courses and had friends. I would not say that the same was true of UMASS at the undergraduate level, at least in the departments I studied in and the ones I knew a bit about, except for Physics. I don't know about other science departments.

The professors at UMASS used a lot of multiple choice tests. A good friend there got As on papers that would have got Cs or less at my college. I remember studying for an Archaeology final on the bus on the way to the test. I got an A --- not because I'm so smart, but because the class was so easy. It was all memorize and regurgitate. My college had very few classes using that format. Even the "easy" courses required lots of writing and short/essay-answer tests.

All the small colleges in that area are undergraduate-focused, which may improve the overall quality of teaching.

That said, I don't know what things are like now. Grade inflation trends may have changed things.

Out here in CA, I've taught at a local community college. Again, the standards are nowhere near what they were at my alma mater. Lot of multiple choice tests, and even rules about grading. For example, I taught a short courses at times. In these courses, I wasn't allowed to give out a C- or a D+ (A- or B- was okay). The system wouldn't let me enter these grades and the choices were C or D. I suspect that this policy was there to ensure that you didn't hand out too many grades below 2.0.

ETA: a friend also attended a small liberal arts college, but this one was not in the top tier. The standards at her college were also low.

WOW, Val. Just-- WOW.

I can think of a couple of reasons having my eldest DS a Soph. in college this year, from his perspective:

"Why would I want to live off campus? I don't even have to go outside to eat (dorm is connected to cafeteria via 2nd floor passage) I live no more than 2 blocks from any of my classes, the gym, the book store, or downtown, and my dorm has 9 floors of women....I'd want to give that up why? So I have to cook for myself, shop for food for myself, find parking places or walk to the school? No thanks, I'm juuuuust fine at the dorm."

I should note, after his Freshman year, we coughed up an additional about 1k a year so he could have his own room without sharing, completely worth every penny as few of those in his class and particularly his roommate were taking class schedules anywhere close to his in difficulty and weren't respecting his need to focus and sleep.

hmmm, I can see the aspect of convenience in this for many kids But I was thinking more about living off campus but very close to campus, pretty much within walking distance when possible so you get the benefits of both worlds.

But our boys, especially the older one, campus cafeteria will most likely be off limits due to his food allergies. Unless he'd want to snack on lettuce like a rabbit in which case there's still a chance of cross contamination! At least in our kids case the food allergy issue is another big reason why off campus housing would make more sense. My university also had off campus adult student housing ... small studios and apartments that were very affordable but were for more mature or married students. But you still had some of the on-campus fun atmosphere there too.

Also ..."why would I want to live off campus ...?" ... well, because we are NOT going to pay the extra $5000 a year per kid that it would cost us for you to live on campus

I think this depends on the personality of the student & the way the dorm is run. My daughter likes being in a dorm setting, but then she choose the all girls "quiet" hall this year. Having been on quite a few college tours in the past few years. Many schools are mostly building "suite" style dorms when they build new dorms rather than traditional style hall dorm. These work better for many students but are sometimes only offered returning students.

Many schools require most freshman to live on campus. And it can be a lot easier to make friends & get involved in campus activities when this is the case. I think there are a variety of reasons many students have trouble going away to college. And why a dorm situation may be a problem for some, I'm not sure many students are ready to take on paying rent, utilities, buying & cooking all their own food.

Plus Depending on the locations of the school dorms can be cheaper than living off campus. The cost of living on campus includes all utilities, usually cable & internet. Where my daughter goes to school this would be the case, particularly as she only needs housing for 9 months. And if you put 6 young adults in a tiny 3 bedroom apartment to cut costs, there can be even less space & privacy than in the dorm.

Why do you think it's cheaper to live OFF campus? Where my daughter goes to school apartments ARE VERY EXPENSIVE, plus she only lives there 9 months of the year so we would have to play 3 months she doesn't use. In addition they are utilities & internet to pay. This is even if you put the 2 students per room in an apartment.

But who knows, maybe by the time my kids are college age, they'll be able to take all the classes they want at home on the computer (our whole family prefers computerized learning), be done in 2 years because they won't be limited by the time constraints of the traditional college calendar and things will look very different than they do now!

Because we were looking at smaller town colleges where renting small units comes cheaper than on campus housing, especially when we would most likely have two boys in college at the same time. Plus, assuming they'd have a job while at school, I would think they'd stay there 12 months and not just 9 months if they want to still have their jobs when they come back, not to mention if they are taking summer classes, summer housing on campus is usually more expensive (or was when I was in college).
But as I mention before, in our case there's a big issue with food (and other allergies) so living off campus would also be more practical and safer.
Plus, depending on the location, we might consider purchasing a small property and instead of renting we'd be paying mortgage and keep the property as a rental once we wouldn't need it for our kids anymore. Wouldn't be the first parents doing it this way. At least we would see our money going towards something we would still benefit from.

I don't know how complex/fatal his allergies are but many school cafeteria's are VERY aware of different allergy/diet requirements. Not all school cafeteria's are created equal, some do this better than others. Your son probably would be best preparing his own food, but some dorms provide special kitchens for these highly allergic kids. I wouldn't just discount school cafeterias by how they were in the past.

But as to your comment that it would save to put both boys together in apartment. You are right it might, but that depends on a lot of things aligning such as both boys wanting to attend the same university & apartment. As most students who live in apartments share anyway, I'm not sure how much it would really save.

You did say your boys are 3 & 5 right??? And you are looking at possible colleges for them now? How do you know a "smaller town college" will be right for them? They might not both get in to the same location. They might not want the same things. My son is a H.S. freshman, 14 almost 15 and he has NO idea what he wants to do or where he wants to go to school yet. And despite being gifted, isn't getting the best grades at the minute so who knows where he will get in. My older DD19 is at a small liberal arts school in a large city across the country. (I just sent her back yesterday) All I do know is my son won't end up where his sister is because it wouldn't fit his needs.

Slow down, while trying to plan for the cost of college is a great idea. I wouldn't hurry to decide that both kids will go to the same small college. Plus colleges may change drastically in the next 12 years. What is best for either child may be totally different from each other. One might need to go to college early, the other need a gap year or two. At 18 they will be adults, and while we as adults can say "this is what I will pay for" they don't always do what is expected.

bluemagic - severe allergy to eggs, including airborne allergy ... there's just no avoiding the smell of scrambled eggs, pancakes and other eggy foods, especially on such a large scale.

But here's the simple math I am using just to give an example.

hypothetical university ...

1. On campus Room & Board for 9 months ... 2 kids x $8300 ($4200 housing, $4100 meal plan) = $16600
2. On campus Room, own food for 9 months ... 2 kids x $6200 ($4200 housing, $1800 own food ... overestimated) = $12400
3. University off campus housing 1 bedroom (enough for 2 kids) ... 1 x $8100 ($450 x 9 rent with utilities, $50 x 9 internet, $400 x 9 own food ... again, overestimated food expenses) = $8100

So, yes, there are places where you can definitely save living off campus when talking about 2 kids in the same school. I have mentioned before that for us it will be a matter of where they can get hopefully tuition free (with scholarships) and as little cost as possible ... $16600 vs. $8100 is a huge difference.

btw, I am not saying they will or have to go to college. If one wants to be a trucker and the other one a cook, I'm fine with that, as long as it's what their heart desires. But they won't be able to go where they want ... they will need to go where they can afford it and if we as parents will have the means to help we will.

Wow only $450 for the rent of a one bedroom. I've always lived in places where housing is really expensive. You can't get a 1 bedroom for 4x that cost in my area, nor where my daughter goes to school. I assume you are going by today's pricing and who knows what will happen with housing costs in the next 10-15 years.

Sorry about the allergies, that can be very scary. Good luck with that. I do know a kid that had a severe egg allergy that did get better as he got older, perhaps that will happen with your son.

I sure hope the allergies ease up a bit in the future! Would be nice!

Yes, I was going by a small midwest town University current costs (I went to grad school there). While the tuition costs and foods costs have gone up in the 13 years I've been gone, the rental prices have gone up only by a bit! It's good to know there are still low cost options

You're really looking at this the wrong way. Typically any given cause will give rise to many effects. And typically any given effect will arise from many causes. You don't just look at one cause-effect pairing in isolation. Life is complicated and it is prudent to be well informed.


You should be careful not to over-moralize about the choices other people are almost forced to make. In college years, the FAFSA formula can effectively add up to 47% to the marginal tax rate the parents are paying on top of other taxes, and maybe other costs of working. Someone can find themselves in a situation where they are working for practically nothing so that it's just not worth it. There may be nothing they can do to avoid that scenario. All they can do is anticipate the possibility and plan accordingly.

I agree that people should not be condemned for playing by the rules. If the rules encourage behavior that is bad for society, they should be changed. Need-based financial aid effectively raises marginal tax rates, and earlier in life, the cost of child care may result in a working mother not keeping much after taxes and expenses. However, many careers cannot easily be turned on and off, and even a partial downshifting ("mommy track") tends to lower the career trajectory. So decisions about how much to work should account for not just current but future after-tax-and-expense earnings.

Although people who look at the rules and decide that working less is optimal should not be condemned, I think there should be more appreciation (instead of demonization as 1-percenters) of high-earning dual income couples who pay a lot of taxes and full freight for their children at college.

While no one is “condemning those who play by the rules” or “demonizing the 1-percenters”, and one is “careful not to over-moralize about the choices other people are almost forced to make”…
some may say that a planned early retirement with the specific intent to game the system for need-based financial aid for college costs may be unethical, and an example of what some people may resent about a system which seems to help the wealthy and affluent become more so, while syphoning dollars out of the system which were originally intended to help those with "need", not those with "game".

The original post was not about "1-percenters", those on a "mommy track", or "choices other people are almost forced to make". It was about "specific intent to game the system".

"Demonizing", "condemning", and "over-moralizing" are strong words. Some may say that accusations using these words may be seen as bullying or intimidation rather than respectful discussion of a difference of viewpoint.

Colleges look at assets.

IMO, the insanely high costs of our tertiary education system are immoral. We tell kids that they MUST go to college. Then the colleges and the banks soak them and/or their parents and yoke most of them to debt that can't even be discharged upon death.

As far as I'm concerned, finding a way to beat being fleeced isn't immoral, and claiming that people who find a way to do so is the wrong way to look at the problem. People who beat an immoral system aren't the problem. The system is the problem. The solution is to change the system.

In this country, that would mean going back to heavily subsidized public universities, as we used to have in California and in other states.

("Heavily subsidized" means "affordable without loans.")

Please share the ways in which you believe "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap" has been looked at wrongly.

Please share alternate ways you see for looking at "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap", which are more accurate.

Regardless of truisms about cause-and-effect, please realize the article created this "pairing" of "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap"; I did not create that pairing.

Regardless of the truisms that "life is complicated" and "it is prudent to be well informed", is there anything specifically in this post which either presumed life was not complicated or one was not well-informed: << "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap"... does not seem a compelling or academically sound reason for whole-grade acceleration. >>

Do you believe that "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap"... IS a compelling or academically sound reason for whole-grade acceleration?

I do not believe the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) considers this a factor.

I partially agree:
1) College/University Tuition costs are rising faster than many other living expenses, as can be read in several articles and reports readily found online.
2) One solution to consider may be to examine tuition costs and see what can be done to bring them in line with the economy. Governmental transparency is needed to accomplish this. Examining and controlling costs may provide greater long-term sustainability than transferring the growing costs to other branches of government to be funded/subsidized.

However I do not agree with a philosophy which might endorse "gaming the system", to help the wealthy and affluent become more so, while syphoning dollars out of the system which were originally intended to help those with "need", not those with "game".

It's probably worth noting at this point that the willingness to game the system is highly correlated with wealth: study.