1) The top 5% in income. Thus every household earning above $157,176 in 2004 (NYT).

2) Those who do not have to work, whether by inheritance, investments, or other privileges conferred by birth: or, “those who derive the vast majority of income from wealth, not from work.” (Sociological concept: also, a class that cannot be entered except by birth).

Perhaps I am far too literal, but to me “middle class” implies those whose income falls roughly in the middle area of average or median incomes or some combination therof. Sure, there should be some control in their for household size and cost of living, but I think there are a lot of people out there classifying themselves as “middle class” who are actually in the upper echelons of income-earners in this country. The cost of living is not twice as much overall from Kansas to Boston. There are a few key elements of the calculation – say housing prices – that are more dramatically different, but overall it isn’t quite that stark. Just looking at things like the government pay scale (obviously not perfect) you see locality adjustments ranging from 0% to say 30-ish% (San Fran is actually rated higher than anywhere else most times). Those are based on housing prices, food, etc. over the metro areas and base pay gets multiplied by the adjustment.

If perception were the only measure, we’d have millionaires who think of themselves as middle class – okay, maybe “upper middle class” – but still quite divorced from the reality that the majority of people live with. Now this isn’t a judgment about how much people should make or whatever, I’ll save that for another forum. But when Williams has a limited pool of aid to give out, there have to be priorities. (Is this horse dead yet?)

Pre-Frosh Mom – Peace Corps, Teach for America, and other similar programs will give you funds toward student loans as part of your payment for service, I think usually a certain amount per year you serve. The federal government also now has a program that will pay off federal loans if you put in 10 years of service, if you stay current on your loans, and if you are under certain payment plans (and if that sounds like a convoluted list of if, if, ifs, that’s because the program is deeply flawed, although a step in the right direction).

0, 0, 0 and I definitely didn’t grow up middle class :)

One of the fundamental problems of our financial aid system is that it punishes/rewards the student for the parents’ financial decisions. That seems backwards. Loans, in the abstract, seemed like the most ethical method–let the person who gained from the experience pay it back after receiving the benefit of the credential–but they backfired as an option.

Off the top of my head, seems to me the best option is a national service program that ensures affordable higher education for its graduates. Let the elite (foolishly) opt out of that national service year by paying sticker price if they so choose–you either spend a year helping others, or you pay much more for education as the cost of not giving that year. A GI Bill not tied exclusively to military service. Americorps wanted to be that program, but it offered too little to too few to change our educational system.

of course, that’s clearly a pipe dream. but it is nice to dream.

Same question for Ralph Lauren polos and cashmere cardigans in bright colors.

But those numbers don’t adequately reflect the state of mind of those who consider themselves middle class. Surveys have shown that, while people consider $40,000 a year to be the low end of what it takes to buy a middle-class life, some people who make as much as $200,000 a year still consider themselves middle class, the researchers said.”
–http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21272238/page/2/

What is “middle class?” The answer seems to be “nobody knows.” If you read the whole article, you’ll see that middle class seems to be largely a function of context–an income that feels like upper middle class in Omaha might be half of that considered upper middle class in New Jersey.

This brings up a whole different slew of issues. There is no doubt in my mind that those who make $180,000 a year often feel squeezed by the cost of Williams. However, there is also no doubt in my mind that–on average–a family making $180,000/y lives a much less frugal of a lifestyle than a family making $90,000/y. In other words, they will have more expensive cars, a more expensive house, live in a nicer neighborhood, take longer/more expensive vacations, eat out more frequently, buy more expensive clothes, etc, etc. The result might be that a family making $180k–because of the financial choices they make–are no less in need of aid than a family making $120k. However, does that mean that this family should receive the same aid, or even the same proportion of their income of aid? I don’t think so!

Now this link is to a wikipedia page, but I’m heading off to work and don’t have time to do more right now. The chart in the middle is directly from the Census Bureau though. It says that (in 2006 dollars) the median househould income in 1967 was $36,847 and in 2006 was $48,201. Wouldn’t that be closer to the a middle class number than, say, $180,000?

This chart actually also includes some of the breakdown (based on 2005 data) of the percentage of people in the U.S. in those income categories, again showing that the number is more in the $40,000-$60,000 range than anything over $100,000.

I agree that financial aid should consider location, number of dependents, etc. However, for that reason the Williams approach seems better than the Harvard “if you make X amount you pay X percent” system. Under that, sometimes Williams gives you more because you make $120,000 but have 4 kids and live in New York City. Other times, you get less because you have one kid and live in Kansas. Seriously? Do we “match” the HYP number for the kid who can totally afford the family contribution in Kansas, or is it better spent on giving the money elsewhere?

However, I’ve got ‘cold feet’.
Frank was leaning towards them yesterday, and I said no…and now I have them today.

But since I’m ‘passing’, allow ‘me’ to take care of tomorrows special.

(Pardon the ‘dish’ everyone…and back to the subject at ‘hand’.)

Jeff: The argument, at least, I believe, goes something like “colleges outside the top endowment per student, and even within, find that endowment funds are highly restricted and that operating costs are largely covered by tuition revenues [and donations].” YMMV, of course, and I hope your judgment does, but it seems to me that a progressive “market-based” collapse of the current higher education funding system (which MS et al have outlined elsewhere) will, in their account, put financial pressures on the next tier. And: I’m only the messenger.

JG: I don’t disagree with what you’re saying (especially about universal education!), but I find it very difficult to make judgments based on realities and not ‘abstractions and vague, misleading generalizations.” “Sure” in the ~$180K family income range there are families who are taking ‘vacations’ — and I know families in San Francisco with two kids in college surviving on a third of that: but I’ll repeat my mantra: $180K today was roughly $90K in 1986; the families making $90K in ‘86 paid less % in taxes (etc); faced radically different (likely overall less) costs of goods; and also received roughly equivalent to slightly poorer finaid from Williams (rough cutoff was $120K in ‘86, ~$240K in today’s dollars,… so in this respect I think “we” are comparing apples to apples, and calling the new product “oranges” in order to provoke an audience response, er, “reader reaction”…) (*)

One would really have to go through the exercise of identify ~20 1986 families, and ~20 roughly comparable 2008 families, and looking fairly closely at their lives and economic situations, to get anywhere in making an overall comparison; and I doubt there will be an easy summary of those experiences. (It would obviously be hard to find comparable groups, but hey, might be an okay senior thesis)…

Bar-be-que sandwitch, anyone? Finger fries?

One thing that I felt like at Williams was that Williams was not equally a financial burden on all students. Those who seemed hit the hardest were the middle class–students on just a little bit of financial aid. The students who were on full rides seemed to be doing much more swimmingly.

Also, regarding internationals, I’m not sure if directing aid to internationals is the right solution; a student whose parents make $70,000 a year in Bangladesh might seem to be a prime candidate for significant aid at Williams, but because the cost of living in Bangladesh is so minuscule, the aid would most likely be “needed” more by a family trying to live off of $120,000 in NYC.

It is a chunk of change, no doubt about it. But we planned for it.

There were other options; good schools that would have cost much less…but they weren’t Williams.. my son’s first choice. And when the shoe fits…and it is of the “finest Corinthian leather”…(okay, dating myself here!)…well, then…

Per the no-loans policy newsletter:

“The new policy applies to all future aid awards, including those of current students. First-years, sophomores, and juniors will see the change reflected in their award letters for 2008-09.”

So, JG is out of luck, but it is a load off of many others who thought they would be owing $$$. It would be interesting to hear from them about this.

‘11 – the situation you describe is taken into account in the Williams system, at least to a certain extent. We don’t have a rigid income-based system. They at least try (as much as they can from the info provided) to balance the competing expenses of the number of dependents, other debt, etc. And the “penalizing” for outside scholarships happens everywhere I think. Williams has improved that somewhat over the years, although I don’t know the exact plan now. As far as college savings, if they expect you to chip in that money the first year, it won’t be there in subsequent years and therefore it won’t be in the calculation. College savings is meant to pay for, well, college, and they do plan on you putting it all in. Again, if you put it all in as a frosh, your soph year package will be substantially different.

JG, in line with an ideal world of no cost college education I wish that for the current upper class students with loans that Williams would pay them.

In reading that F/S Mom’s monthly tuition bills are greater than her monthly mortgage, I envisioned instead of a country house in the Berkshires her son enjoys the pleasures of being in Williamstown… if only there was a lovely house for parents’ pleasure.

Sometimes it seems like you get penalized by the Finacial Aid office for getting an outside scholarship, or for saving for college. Some sort of income based aid would help with that.

At a higher policy level, I think education should be absolutely free right on up through college, but I know such arguments don’t fly with most of the people on this blog. But within the system we have, I think Williams has lately done quite well at making things more fair.

I also 100% disagree with the “we’ll match HYP” idea. Why privilege a few schools like that? The idea is about finding the right fit, and encouraging kids to randomly apply to Ivies in the hopes of getting a bigger aid package to compare to Williams just boggles the mind. Also, since we give some students better packages than HYP, we get a discount if that is the case? And what about amHerst? Swarthmore? Just a big bad can of worms.

Regarding your point about ED or applying to those schools, that is an interesting one. I still think you are exaggerating in terms of numbers, because even before the new regime, financial aid awards varied wildly so kids would not have applied ED if they were really worried about the aid package, but you are probably right there would be some marginal impact in that arena as well that is worth considering.

One possible idea: Williams agrees to match those aid packages for any kids who are choosing between it and H/Y/P/S. Might create some problems (kids applying to certain schools only to leverage more money out of Williams, different levels of aid for similarly situated students at Williams), but it would be a cheaper way to avoid losing students to the only schools that Williams has much worse than a 50-50 relative yield with …

The first visit home, my frosh and I were talking about classes, and he fessed up to having missed one (just one class) in the first few weeks of school. I sat him down and we put pencil to paper to figure out just how much money was wasted in the missing of that one class. It was an eye-opener for both of us…with the result that there have been no absences since.

However, back to the loan issue…
I am certainly no expert on this subject, but I believe there are circumstances where the home equity factor can present a very misleading financial profile… and prevent some much-needed aid.

On a separate note, there are a helluva lot of people who want to go to Williams. There are completely qualified, “best of the best” people sitting at the top of the waitlist who missed getting outright acceptance mostly on chance (and may have been admitted at HYP. If there are a handful of people that are getting the most need-based aid we can give after discussing/negotiating with FinAid and still choose to go elsewhere for the money, it is too bad but what can we do? Williams has aid policies and it has movement within those parameters, but it can’t just hand over a pile of cash because a family making nearly $200,000 can get more at Harvard. Bullshit. And things like having 4 kids in college or some other extenuating circumstance is already considered by FinAid, and would be looked at again if an applicant spoke with them. It doesn’t mean that any wish will be granted. Again, there are policies in place for a reason.

Even a school as well-funded as Williams has limited funds available for student aid in any given year (and that will continue to be limited because there are always competing priorities). That is a decision made in budget allocations far above the heads of the people actually doling out aid packages. I don’t want that limited pool going to people who don’t really need it. Sorry, just the way I feel. I think a lot of people who think they “need” money don’t actually. It would be easier, it would be nice, it would be helpful, but it might not really be “needed.” Now that the messed up home equity situation is being addressed in need calculations, I think by and large FinAid gets things right – and more so if you ask them to double-check or wiggle a bit on the amount.

Perhaps I’m jaded by the fact that my parents and I are still paying off Williams, have never ever owned a new car, always lived in old small houses, etc. but I want to point out that a family bringing in $180,000 is not suffering unless they are also supporting a half dozen kids. And anyone who says “$180,000 ain’t what it used to be” is totally missing the need forest for his/her elitist trees.

My family contribution was still in the range of $10,000/year when my parents combined made less than 1/3 of that $180,000 number and my brother was also in college. And with that kind of income, we had a home, a car, had fun occasionally, with no need to beg or panhandle or anything. Yes, things cost more now than they used to but not that much more (I graduated in ‘01 not ‘51). “Need” is a malleable concept. After a certain amount of money, you are talking about money for vacations, nicer cars, nicer houses, nicer things. Those are all well and good, but don’t reflect “need.”

And to beat a drum that David usually likes – I’d rather any extra funds the trustees are willing to toss for FinAid go to international students with real need, rather than people in the U.S. making $180,000 or more.

I don’t know how many current Williams students explicitly turn down HYPS (although I’d guess it’s more than 10 per class), but there’s a larger set who implicitly reject them by not even applying. Some kids apply ED to Williams; others (including myself) apply RD but didn’t apply to HYPS because we knew we would prefer a small LAC environment to the Ivy insanity.

But, those preferences only go so far. If I had known when applying that Harvard would be about $35k/yr cheaper than Williams (which is currently the case, though of course it wasn’t at the time), I would have applied to Harvard. If I got in, and I’d like to think I’d have a decent chance, I would have gone. It’s hard to imagine any middle-class kid thinking differently, and pretty much all the Williams students I’ve talked to (most of whom applied ED to Williams) say that if they were re-applying today, they would go RD instead to see if they could get the amazing HYPS financial aid deals.

It seems like your argument boils down to “HYPS already get all the best students, so Williams might as well stop trying to compete and just resign itself to being a second-class school”. You might be right, but it’s a depressing thought. I’d like to think that Williams cane be the same caliber of school as HYPS.

I would love to see them copy Harvard’s stance, though. For those with highly fluctuating incomes, it’s an important factor.

I thought that Williams, (and several other schools) were planning on taking ‘home equity’ out of the loan equation soon… starting this Fall…(?)

Am I mixing this up with Harvard’s new Admissions procedures?

Begging your pardon, but it was in reference to a (your?) comment:

“Some take interest in the “life of the mind” and seek out the famous 3 a.m. intellectual conversations we’re all promised when we come to college…”

…which, coincidentally, also arrived at 3 am-ish, EB time…
…which either way, was meant in fun…
…and a way to distinguish yourself from the other ‘10 above