Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Ivy League Admissions.

Yes to intparent's post above.

Honestly, with an EG/PG kiddo, the extracurriculars are what keeps her sane. This is the method through which we've been able to teach her skills like perseverance, responsibility, doing one's BEST when it won't be THE best, etc. It certainly hasn't been possible through academic means. (Gosh, thanks school for listening to us and working with us on this-- NOT... ) As for 4-H lowering odds of admission to competitive private colleges... er-- well, I'd like to think that most of the places that are looking for Polo and third-world-orphanage building as extracurriculars are NOT the kinds of places that DD is wanting to go, anyway. I'm also guessing-- STRONGLY-- that this statistic is skewed heavily by kids who look very "ag" oriented. Naturally, there are any number of reasons why a kid who has done a decade of market-animal projects wouldn't be a great fit at Yale. Just saying. Archery or digital arts, though? I'm thinking probably not the same.

Do be willing to consider international post-secondary. We are-- and we have some VERY significant barriers to doing it because of DD's medical issues and our plan for me to use renewed employment at DD's location to pay for her post-secondary education.

Depending on how accelerated your kiddo is, they may/may not really have any opportunity to contribute financially to their college costs. Realistically, this is DD's situation-- she has a savings account with a staggering sum of money in it-- for a MC kid who just turned 14, that is. She saves VERY well. She just doesn't have a regular source of cash the way a 16yo with a summer job would. For kids who are 12-16, or those who are disabled somehow, contributing to college savings is just not terribly realistic when you're looking at college costs in the many thousands annually. And to be clear, unless you're looking at local community colleges-- that IS what the costs are going to be, even at local state flagships, for most families.


From what I can tell, as long as the stock market doesn't crash again in a HUGE meltdown, private schools will be increasing in costs at about 3-4%. I wouldn't count on that with public institutions-- it COULD be that low, but it could look like CA, too, depending upon what individual state legislatures feel compelled to do. Anywhere that unemployment numbers are high, take a look at how well-funded higher ed is within that state... because that is directly tied to tuition increases. The unemployment rate in a state is tied to its overall economic health-- and how the state is handling it also tells you something about long-term priorities/methodology. For an example of what I mean, NC used to look like a very good bargain even for out-of-state students, and because of the commitment to affordable higher ed there, UNC-Chapel Hill also has a very high level of elite students admitted. On the other hand, during the past year, the state of NC has been quite busy slashing spending in that sector (and others)-- so as a long-term bet, this is no longer such a good one. We will be wary, and we're only trying to look 5 years ahead. Even that is quite challenging in the public sector.

Another thing that we worry about a bit with DD's triple acceleration is what colleges will THINK about that during admissions-- will MIT think "there's no way that we want a 15yo living in the dorms" or will they not care? Is there some way to point out that she WON'T be living on campus, but off-campus with a parent?? Should we? I know that a lot of parents really feel that the dorm/house experience is an integral feature of college, but we don't (and we have other reasons why it isn't feasible anyway-- so even on a campus which requires it, she'll be exempt).

You could argue that if someone is starting college 3 years early, they may have 3 more years of lifetime earnings over which to amortize the cost of a college education, so they should be willing to borrow more than a normal-age college student. The counter-argument is that a gifted 15yo is still a minor and should not be taking on debt. I'm not sure which argument is stronger.

22B is invested in the "elite" schools, though, which I hypothesized will be largely insulated from the reality check the rest of the higher education industry has coming.

I endorse your comments about the inflation rate increasing. It's also worth considering how ordinary costs keep going up... groceries in particular are catching fire, and I don't see any reason for that to slow down over the next ten years. The medical system remains irretrievably broken. Fuel prices are still rising despite increasing US production. Among all these increasing cost pressures, salaries remain flat. A second-quartile income can be expected to have noticeably less buying power in the next 10 years.


The idea of saving 2/3rds of a 2nd-quartile income sounds noble, until you start digging in and realize the other costs that come with it. The neighborhoods that can afford are crowded, unsanitary, and unsafe. And since most school budgets are tied to local property taxes, school quality suffers as well.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

This works against her in the FA process, I am sure you know this. Money in your kid's name is considered at something like 35% available for college expenses (vs. 5% for parents). Assuming it is maybe an UTMA account? Since a true savings account in her name isn't really allowed in today's banking world. I think that still counts as a "kid" asset. You do have other options (eg, joint checking account with you as the lead name/SSN on it) -- gives them access to a debit/ATM card, checks, and gives you some options to move money around as needed if they overseas or at school or whatever. I can't recall if you can do then when they are under 18... but maybe you can.

Yes, Jon, "every penny". I don't count loans as part of that aid, obviously you end up paying those back (although Stafford loans have interest paid by the taxpayer until the student graduates from college, so even those are subsidized by tax payers). But all the grants have to come from someplace. You may not like how American universities choose to compensate or spend their money (hence consider McGill, etc. if you are happy with that format and quality of education for your kid, and feel confident that employers and graduate schools will be also). Some people do take that route. And even attending an in-state public university means you are taking a subsidy from the tax payers of your state (obviously we all pay taxes, and some of us may pay more than the subsidy our kids would get back -- but some of us don't).


I think this is what the OP said. I do think "living below your means" is something to consider in order to save for anything -- college, retirement, etc.

Worth noting that in the original text (as opposed to Sailer's blog post) the authors only state specifically having analyzed the impact of "ROTC and co-op work programs" and follow that "60 to 65% reduction" with a speculation that a similar finding MIGHT also apply to FFA and 4-H, though they fail to defend why those should be included as "career-oriented" or activities which support a thesis that a participant is "undecided" about his/her academic future.

Also worth noting that this study was based on admissions in 1995-96. It's so old (in terms of the changes in higher ed) that I'm not sure it has much validity at this point. Also the case that 4-H and ROTC programs are profoundly different than they would have been for students in the early 90's.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that NO student debt is actually "good" debt at this point in time. It's non-dischargeable debt-- so if your child were to be hit by a car and completely disabled prior to his/her senior year... or, for that matter, on the way to his/her first job--

they'd still be on the hook for repayment of any educational debt. Yes, one would hope that such a thing is rare... but really, the ONLY debt that I think is remotely acceptable is that which can realistically be repaid while being seriously underemployed for the entire period of repayment. Nobody knows for sure what their future holds. There's no real insurance policy to cover "inability to work" in educational debt.

That's a third factor for us. It may be that this is because we know a few people to whom such things have, in fact, happened. A single auto accident can do it in a split second, even if it isn't you at fault.

In other words, all educational debt is unsecured debt. Think of it as being like a Visa that you only use for restaurant dining.

Not all student debt is the same. Generally direct subsidized, direct unsubsidized, and direct PLUS loans can be discharged if the borrower is disabled, dies, or goes through bankruptcy. So while it is unsecured, there are some provisions for discharging the debt. Private loans are a whole different story and are to be avoided. Here is a link with some information on discharging loans:



We will probably take the subsidized loans as they are offered for my D, with the plan to pay them back upon graduation. It just stretches out the payment process a little longer over the income stream in our case.

Here's a little speculative thought process on this:
Imagine if college tuition wasn't actually a zero-sum closed system...

What if a school sought out students likely to become future government policy makers?
What would happen if the statistics of incoming freshman and graduates were used to solicit new customers?
What if they went all modern advertiser and used tricks like markup/markdown? (increase tuiton by 20%, then send out 20% discount coupons.)
Or had the idea that giving someone money now signficantly increases the chance that person will give considerably more money later on?
What if a school competed and advertised based on reputation? Listed famous graduates, nobel prize winners, diversity statistics, winning sport teams, etc? What if testimonials from former customers helped attract new customers?

In an environment like that I would start to suspect that they have an interest in attracting certain types of students who will either support their statistics or have a probability of donating significant money later. I would also think in a business-oriented non-altruistic thought exercise like above that "help" is NOT intended for those who would not be able to attend college any other way but for those who fulfill the business objectives. In this bizarre fantasy world, then every penny reduced is a penny that shows up in the annual report under advertising costs.

*shiver* glad I live in a different world than that one.

I think you mean that colleges ARE doing these things. Some of them... the ones I think they are not doing:


Good luck trying to get a clear picture of outcomes from any college other than anecdotal stories about a few specific grads. They trumpet the stats of the incoming fresman class, but it is very, very difficult to get clear, consistent information on outcomes.


Possibly merit money is granted with this as at least a portion of their thinking (if I thought they were looking at the long term, but that is actually also somewhat questionable). I don't see it for need based aid -- it isn't like those students come from big money families, and who knows if they will be financially successful enough to give money back to the college later if that is not the case? Now I think colleges do grant ADMISSION to students from families with a lot of money if the family has made significant contributions in the past to the school.

Confirming intparent:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/college-aid-recipients-donate-less-as-alumni/
College Aid Recipients Donate Less as Alumni
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
New York Times
February 21, 2012