We came to the US to be free. Old world universities were copied from Indian Buddhist Temples. That's nice but it's over with $Trillion Dollar Hollywood Pro Sports like the NFLL, NBA, IOC, and MLB. Coaches want to be freed to pursue wealth and fame.
We came to the US to be free. Old world universities were copied from Indian Buddhist Temples. That's nice but it's over with $Trillion Dollar Hollywood Pro Sports like the NFLL, NBA, IOC, and MLB. Coaches want to be freed to pursue wealth and fame.
I agree. These coaches you speak of should feel free to throw off the shackles of their collegiate burden and join the likes of Steve Magness and Joan Hunter in the pursuit of wealth and fame found in professional distance running.
Try again. $175K income. $1M in SEP IRA. $200K home equity. $1.2M in mutual funds. $125K in savings. I am worth less than 1/2 of what you are and I earn less but have to pay 3 times as much.
But that’s an issue of your having saved in the wrong places, not “saved too much”. You would have benefited from sheltering more of your income and assets in retirement accounts. The SEP would be ignored but you’d have been better off with the mutual funds in a retirement account or home equity. The other $125k savings is below the threshold where it would even count as available.
But why should these colleges make a distinction based on the location of your wealth?
Imagine a tradesperson in a high cost-of-living area. Had the kid in his early 20s, scraped by for 15 or 20 years paying rent. No access to 401k, not enough excess funds to contribute meaningfully to IRAs. A few years ago he struck out on his own, and business started booming. Made $200K last year, and has managed to put aside $200K for a down payment on a house. Has to pay over $60K per year at Brown.
Why do they do it that way? It's because there's nothing the Ivies hate more than the working class.
If opting out means no roster limits, that is good for college athletes. But these are the richest schools in the world, with vast endowments in the multi-billions with a lot of the wealthiest alumni and the best college brands. Hence, they are more than capable of paying their athletes, who work as hard as any NCAA athletes directly or through NIL. The market is there for many of these athletes. The Ivies are too stingy, controlling, and greedy to pay them, no other reasons. Hence, Dartmouth's resistance to their hoops team unionizing.
Independent analysis would confirm that they find the financial aid if it will get them the priority recruits. But their financial aid is already so generous it is cheaper for the bottom 60 percent in income to send their kids to places like Harvard on the rare occasion they are admitted than to their own state school even in Florida where tuition has been capped for ten years. I know because that is the case with my kid, who is at a private college with similar aid.
But why should these colleges make a distinction based on the location of your wealth?
Imagine a tradesperson in a high cost-of-living area. Had the kid in his early 20s, scraped by for 15 or 20 years paying rent. No access to 401k, not enough excess funds to contribute meaningfully to IRAs. A few years ago he struck out on his own, and business started booming. Made $200K last year, and has managed to put aside $200K for a down payment on a house. Has to pay over $60K per year at Brown.
Why do they do it that way? It's because there's nothing the Ivies hate more than the working class.
Financial aid rules are not set up by the Ivies, the rules to determine the 'expected family contribution' are the same nationally from the worst community college all the way up to CalTech.
The difference between the top well endowed schools and the average school is that the top schools/Ivies meet the applicants full need with grants, while the lesser schools meet the need with loans and campus work/study jobs.
The Ivies are not stingy with the money, in fact they have more money to give out than they have qualified applicants!
If you are interested in this subject go to the Questbridge website, it's an amazing non profit that pairs up bright low income kids with 'unused' financial aid at the best colleges.
You will see it's not that the ivy's don't like the working class, it's that the working class is unaware how the system works and does not know that this free money is available.
A very few but very clever low income families with bright kids actually work with college consultants starting when the kids are in 7th or 8th grade. The consultants helps the kid to understand how to prepare an optimal college application, and helps parents structure their finances to max out financial aid. If you wait til senior year of high school, it is to late to move money around.
Only the elite few schools use the CSS Profile to determine need. It took me an entire weekend to complete. Most schools merely use FAFSA. It took me 2 minutes to complete. I don't know how you can claim that schools all use the same information. And even amongst the schools who cover 100% of demonstrated need, their determinations vary greatly. Even within the Ivy League, the numbers vary. For example, some count home equity, some don't.
Independent analysis would confirm that they find the financial aid if it will get them the priority recruits. But their financial aid is already so generous it is cheaper for the bottom 60 percent in income to send their kids to places like Harvard on the rare occasion they are admitted than to their own state school even in Florida where tuition has been capped for ten years. I know because that is the case with my kid, who is at a private college with similar aid.
Priority recruits - keep in mind that in the sports that are driving the whole ncaa mess, football, B ball and womens b ball, the Ivy league actually get crappy recruits. Maybe one Ivy player per decade even just makes an NFL, nba, or WNBA roster.
So a 'priority recruit' is either a decent player from a wealthy family, who wants to use sports to get admitted, or a uniquely bright financial aid kid with a mentor/guidance counselor that know how to work the system to get a poor smart athlete full financial aid in the Ivies. These are not future pros being chased by Alabama and Texas.
As discussed prior, once the Ivy coach finds these unicorns: kids whose parents want to pay, and financial aid kids who can help the team; there is absolutely nothing the coach can do to change the cost of attendance for the athlete.
Only the elite few schools use the CSS Profile to determine need. It took me an entire weekend to complete. Most schools merely use FAFSA. It took me 2 minutes to complete. I don't know how you can claim that schools all use the same information. And even amongst the schools who cover 100% of demonstrated need, their determinations vary greatly. Even within the Ivy League, the numbers vary. For example, some count home equity, some don't.
They are supposed to be the same.🤔
Maybe we have a lawsuit to file. 🤑
Once the FAFSA prints out your EFC, that stays the same for every school you submit it to.
It should be cost of attendance (tuition, r&B, fees, travel 2 trips)
minus
EFC = need.
How that need is met varies from school to school.
If opting out means no roster limits, that is good for college athletes. But these are the richest schools in the world, with vast endowments in the multi-billions with a lot of the wealthiest alumni and the best college brands. Hence, they are more than capable of paying their athletes, who work as hard as any NCAA athletes directly or through NIL. The market is there for many of these athletes. The Ivies are too stingy, controlling, and greedy to pay them, no other reasons. Hence, Dartmouth's resistance to their hoops team unionizing.
The issue in all the ncaa lawsuits is about a school like Alabama and Penn State, not the Ivy league.
At the 'power schools' TV contracts for football and basketball, ncaa bball tourney, bowl games and playoffs generate annual revenue now between $50 and $100 million annually per college!
That revenue covers their costs, plus cost of all the other sports including t&xc.
The remainder is a huge profit that helps to fund the University and build their Endowment. To their credit my examples of Alabama and Penn State have used this profit over past 50 years to turn their schools from cow pastures to giant modern research universities!
The lawsuits simply point out that these profits were built on the backs of athletes who did not share in the money. Coaches and ADs did share in the money with $million salaries.
The Ivy league, the Patriot league, the West Coast conference, in fact most D1 leagues, have however, never generated a profit from sports.
Revenued minus costs makes a loss for the college. The loss is paid for by tuition payments, donations and use of endowments. The loss is tolerated by the school, as sports plays a huge role in the vibrancy of a campus, and a balanced student life.
There is no athletic profit at these schools to be shared with athletes.
No one is watching Penn v Dartmouth football on TV. No one is watching the heps xc meet at Van Cortlandt on TV. Therefore value of Ivy sports on TV is zero, and as TV is driver of 99% of revenue, there is no revenue. Only cost of having teams.
This is why Ivies and small schools choose to opt out of the House settlement.
So you are right, Ivy athletes work just as hard as other ncaa athletes, they just generate very little TV interest, revenue, and absolutely no profit to be shared.
If opting out means no roster limits, that is good for college athletes. But these are the richest schools in the world, with vast endowments in the multi-billions with a lot of the wealthiest alumni and the best college brands. Hence, they are more than capable of paying their athletes, who work as hard as any NCAA athletes directly or through NIL. The market is there for many of these athletes. The Ivies are too stingy, controlling, and greedy to pay them, no other reasons. Hence, Dartmouth's resistance to their hoops team unionizing.
The issue in all the ncaa lawsuits is about a school like Alabama and Penn State, not the Ivy league.
At the 'power schools' TV contracts for football and basketball, ncaa bball tourney, bowl games and playoffs generate annual revenue now between $50 and $100 million annually per college!
That revenue covers their costs, plus cost of all the other sports including t&xc.
The remainder is a huge profit that helps to fund the University and build their Endowment. To their credit my examples of Alabama and Penn State have used this profit over past 50 years to turn their schools from cow pastures to giant modern research universities!
The lawsuits simply point out that these profits were built on the backs of athletes who did not share in the money. Coaches and ADs did share in the money with $million salaries.
The Ivy league, the Patriot league, the West Coast conference, in fact most D1 leagues, have however, never generated a profit from sports.
Revenued minus costs makes a loss for the college. The loss is paid for by tuition payments, donations and use of endowments. The loss is tolerated by the school, as sports plays a huge role in the vibrancy of a campus, and a balanced student life.
There is no athletic profit at these schools to be shared with athletes.
No one is watching Penn v Dartmouth football on TV. No one is watching the heps xc meet at Van Cortlandt on TV. Therefore value of Ivy sports on TV is zero, and as TV is driver of 99% of revenue, there is no revenue. Only cost of having teams.
This is why Ivies and small schools choose to opt out of the House settlement.
So you are right, Ivy athletes work just as hard as other ncaa athletes, they just generate very little TV interest, revenue, and absolutely no profit to be shared.
this^ is pretty accurate. though the ivys do have lots of $$.
What are you basing the statement on that they are suppossed to be the same? I am unaware of it and it can't be true because the data used by schools is front and center. A student who has $2M in home equity may have to pay $90K at a school who considers home equity but may pay nothing at another school that does not. Another student may have no home equity but have that $2M in stocks. That student will pay full price at both of the schools.
More than 300 Ivy Leaguers have played in the NFL. Two Yalies were drafted by the league just in 2024. But priority recruits means recruits that are made a priority by coaches (at the Ivies), not the top recruits in the nation. As for stinginess, the Ivies don't want to pay players; they don't want to be competing on a dollar basis for recruits; and they don't want unionized players with a semblance of the bargaining power of collective entities with endowments in the tens of billions of dollars. Talented kids in the lower 50% of income rarely apply to Ivies because they don't go to the kind of schools where you are prepared to apply to them and told how to accumulate credentials and what to say on statements of purpose by people with a track record of getting students in. They don't have a clue, in other words, and historically Ivies haven't wanted to admit them anyway.
Just to point out that even those $100 million TV contracts are a drop in the bucket for Harvard. With its $53.2 billion endowment, that amounts to 0.18%. But in reality, tv contracts I have seen were worth more like $21 million (Texas) per year. The SEC had a $300 million deal per year.
What are you basing the statement on that they are suppossed to be the same? I am unaware of it and it can't be true because the data used by schools is front and center. A student who has $2M in home equity may have to pay $90K at a school who considers home equity but may pay nothing at another school that does not. Another student may have no home equity but have that $2M in stocks. That student will pay full price at both of the schools.
You should be able to build a spreadsheet comparing all your offers.
The EFC from FAFSA will be the same in all.
The Cost of Attendance comes right from school website with small adjustment on the travel based on your residence.
That will give your need. Now the school will meet your need with grants, loans and work/study. Put that in your spreadsheet.
The hocus/pocus of CSS profile really just impacts how much school authorizes as loan vs grant.
Of course what you are running into is a parent with a $2million House or $2million stock portfolio isn't really poor. Many parents would feel that accessing some of that equity to help pay for college is not unreasonable.
Still you obviously are trying to get best price for quality.
You take your spreadsheet back to your favorite school and argue. 'jr really wants to come here, but your calculations of aid results in too much loan. Look at my options B and C. They calculate differently and it results in more grant. If you can match this, or get close we will choose your school.'
In this manner, you can sometimes generate movement. I also don't know if your applicant is a recruited athlete.
If they don't budge, that's it. Our lawsuit also out the window, as school just calculating the amount of loan going into meeting your need.
Similarly, the community college could say. Your need with us is $3700. We have no grant budget this year, but we can offer you a campus job for $1700, and a federal student loan for $2000.
What are you basing the statement on that they are suppossed to be the same? I am unaware of it and it can't be true because the data used by schools is front and center. A student who has $2M in home equity may have to pay $90K at a school who considers home equity but may pay nothing at another school that does not. Another student may have no home equity but have that $2M in stocks. That student will pay full price at both of the schools.
You should be able to build a spreadsheet comparing all your offers.
The EFC from FAFSA will be the same in all.
The Cost of Attendance comes right from school website with small adjustment on the travel based on your residence.
That will give your need. Now the school will meet your need with grants, loans and work/study. Put that in your spreadsheet.
The hocus/pocus of CSS profile really just impacts how much school authorizes as loan vs grant.
Of course what you are running into is a parent with a $2million House or $2million stock portfolio isn't really poor. Many parents would feel that accessing some of that equity to help pay for college is not unreasonable.
Still you obviously are trying to get best price for quality.
You take your spreadsheet back to your favorite school and argue. 'jr really wants to come here, but your calculations of aid results in too much loan. Look at my options B and C. They calculate differently and it results in more grant. If you can match this, or get close we will choose your school.'
In this manner, you can sometimes generate movement. I also don't know if your applicant is a recruited athlete.
If they don't budge, that's it. Our lawsuit also out the window, as school just calculating the amount of loan going into meeting your need.
Similarly, the community college could say. Your need with us is $3700. We have no grant budget this year, but we can offer you a campus job for $1700, and a federal student loan for $2000.
This isn’t accurate. Every school uses its own formula to determine need and institutional aid. This usually requires the CSS or similar forms for additional data. The FAFSA is used to determine federal aid, not institutional aid.
I checked offers that family members have received. They list a line under Student Aid Index Titled Based on the FAFSA. Thise are the same. But the next section is titled Based on Institutiinal Methodology. Those are all.lesd than FAFSA and they differ by tens of thousands of dollars.
Yes. I don't know why anyone would think the offers are the same. And even though the Ivies will match each other's offers, very few kids are getting accepted to multiple schools because they can only apply early decision to one school.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.