I am an idiot: Next year I will have three kids at expensive private colleges in non-technical majors

if your kids were half smart they could get partial scholarships like I did

If your 18-22 year old "kids" were adults, they would pay for their own education.

If you had actually read the paper you are talking about, instead of merely alluding to it (citing your sources is a skill they teach at top-flight colleges, you know), you'd know that it CLEARLY states:

Which completely invalidates your argument. So much for being "financially prudent." By the way, the lead author is not from Princeton, only the second author is. Interested parties can read more here:

Finally, if you'd "done your homework," you'd know that one study should not be the basis of a major decision. There are many other studies that contradict Dale and Krueger, such as these:

Both of which control for pre-college achievement and still find a significant wage increase for those who attend an elite college.

laughingostrich wrote:

Please list out your monthly income and expenses and I'll tell you where you are being an idiot.

Ha! Ha! that was a good one. I pay about $50K +- a few in state/federal taxes, so that's my number one expense. Probably used to support your food stamps and Federal assistance programs.

At this point it's not really worth keeping one of the jobs. The big tax hit on the top end of the income pretty much kills the desire to work for it. Not really interested in busting my tail to feed the social welfare, military and banking system. Heck, I might actually join in and be a lazy a$$ like most everyone else.

To g54gfdh: I read the paper in 2004 when we went through this process with our children. Thanks for finding that study for me, and for confirming that I've read it correctly:

My statement: "Yes, the average lifetime income from those graduating from Ivy's (or equivalent) are higher than those who graduate from non-Ivy's". Your highlighted statement suggesting I've missed something: "However, the average tuition charged by the school is significantly related to the students’ subsequent earnings'. Am I missing something, or are these saying the same thing?

My statement: "However, there are several studies which show that kids who have gotten into Ivy's, but turned them down to choose other schools, earn exactly the same amounts over their lifetimes". Your statement suggesting I'm missing something: "We find that students who attended more selective colleges do not earn more than other students who were accepted and rejected by comparable schools but attended less selective colleges'. Arent' these sentences saying the same thing?

So let's get back to my original response to an earlier post and I'll again reiterate my position:

*If you have a child who can get into an Ivy or equivalent, you don't have to feel like you are "short changing" that child by sending them to a lower-cost school...they will probably earn the same amount, over the course of their lifetime(s), either way.

The study we've both referenced supports that position.

Cheers.

The middle class isn't the median income group. It's the middle social class. 150k in the Northeast is middle class, maybe towards the upper end but certainly not in the upper class unless you were born into it.

A persistent source of confusion surrounding the term "middle class" derives predominantly from there being no set criteria for such a definition. From an economic perspective, for example, members of the middle class do not necessarily fall in the middle of a society's income distribution. Instead, middle class salaries tend to be determined by middle class occupations, which in turn are attained by means of middle class values. Thus, individuals who might fall in the middle ground on a societal hierarchy as defined by sociologists do not necessarily fall into a middle ground on an economic hierarchy as defined by economists. As a result, intuitive colloquial and journalistic usage of the term casts a wide net and does not necessarily coincide with an academic sociological or economic definition.

I'd say the best thing you can do is tell them "I can afford to give you X for tuition, living expenses etc. You can go to a community college for two years and save a good portion of the money to help pay for your last two years at an expensive college, or you can go to a state school or a school offering major scholarship money for 4 years and break even with a small part time job, or you can graduate with a massive amount of debt from student loans and go to an expensive school for all 4 years. This puts the responsibility on the student. If they are wise they will choose the first option.

Wise students make decisions that make sense financially. I turned down UC Berkeley and UCLA to go to UC Davis, since Davis was offering a full scholarship, and I knew I would graduate debt free.

Also for grants you get to take deductions for every other child you have in college, by the 4th one you would likely qualify especially if you are an older fellow (older people are expected to contribute a smaller portion of their income, because they will be retiring sooner)

I went to one of these schools, and studied philosophy. I think it was worthwhile, in that I learned to

1. Learn and teach myself. Most people cannot do this

2. Write. Again most do not do this.

3. Express ideas in a dynamic setting. I don't want to say debate, but it was close

The school I went to is expensive and highly selective, but does not produce business leaders. More lawyers, doctors and academics. The chance to interact with this type of student body was valuable. The faculty were also very interested in teaching students, and working with them. So overall it was a good experience.

However, I have more business contacts from high school (which is also very exclusive). My high school is more like the archetypal East Coast boys club, and the various contacts and references I have as a result shows. But these are not "thoughtful" people for the most part. Even at the age of 15 their parents taught that getting a high paying job was the ultimate goal in life.

I took financial ownership of about 1/3rd of my tuition, roughly $66k in current dollars. There are a dearth of these kinds of schools, so it will be expensive. I wish I had made more contact w/ faculty and alumni, but overall I am satisfied w/ my experience.

Basically if your children want to be, "thoughtful" people, then it is worth it to be in this environment. If they want to be big swingers, then there are more cost effective ways to do it.

Senior Software Engineer wrote:

laughingostrich wrote:

Please list out your monthly income and expenses and I'll tell you where you are being an idiot.

Ha! Ha! that was a good one. I pay about $50K +- a few in state/federal taxes, so that's my number one expense. Probably used to support your food stamps and Federal assistance programs.

At this point it's not really worth keeping one of the jobs. The big tax hit on the top end of the income pretty much kills the desire to work for it. Not really interested in busting my tail to feed the social welfare, military and banking system. Heck, I might actually join in and be a lazy a$$ like most everyone else.

Ok, so you have $100,000 left over. Where do you waste it?

No one is saying you are rich....What everyone is saying is that you are an idiot if you think you are lower middle class when you make 150k a year. You are easily in the top 10% of earners in America. The fact that you think you are lower middle class show's how disconnected you are with the average American.

I make 74k a year and live in New England and feel I am middle class. I don't know what I would do with another 75k. I would defiantly consider myself very well off if I did have it.

And you and everyone else knows that you are NOT taxed at 45%. IF you are you are very stupid or your accountant is very stupid. So please stop lying. Including state, local, and federal taxes someone in your income bracket is taxed right at 30%.

The fact that you are desperately trying to make people feel bad for your for making 150k a year is pretty sad in general.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

And you and everyone else knows that you are NOT taxed at 45%. IF you are you are very stupid or your accountant is very stupid. So please stop lying. Including state, local, and federal taxes someone in your income bracket is taxed right at 30%.

The fact that you are desperately trying to make people feel bad for your for making 150k a year is pretty sad in general.

I own my own business, and my wife and I are in the marginal 25% federal income tax bracket. Our state tax rate is approximately 5%.

I've contemplated giving myself a raise, but haven't. Why bother?

Social security taxes are 4.2 and 6.2%, one for the business and one for the individual. Don't kid yourself that because the business pays it, it isn't my direct tax. Medicare taxes are 1.65% each for personal and business. Federal taxes are 25% and state taxes are 5%. So I would get a whole, whopping 57 cents for every dollar of my raise. Then, if I want to buy something, it's another 7-8% tax on top of that.

So what you are saying is that you wouldn't give yourself a raise even though it requires no EXTRA work from you. All because you would only get to keep 57% of the money from that raise.

No extra work but you get more money and for some reason you think that is a waste.

Hmmmmmmm where did you go to school again?

If only we all had your problems. More money no extra work. Your life really does suck.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

The fact that you are desperately trying to make people feel bad for your for making 150k a year is pretty sad in general.

QFE. SSE is quick to judge others for getting "worthless" degrees, but God forbid someone call him out.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

So what you are saying is that you wouldn't give yourself a raise even though it requires no EXTRA work from you. All because you would only get to keep 57% of the money from that raise.

No extra work but you get more money and for some reason you think that is a waste.

Hmmmmmmm where did you go to school again?

If only we all had your problems. More money no extra work. Your life really does suck.

Why would I transfer money from my business to myself to lose nearly half of it? It's quite pathetic that you think the government should be able to take nearly half of my marginal income, just because of my existence.

You were saying it was BS that somebody would be taxed at 45%. It isn't.

And the no extra work thing is complete BS. Anyone who has started a business knows what 50-60-70 hour weeks are like. Lots and lots of fun. Eventually it can pay off, though.

I'm not really talking about taxes...you are

I'm pointing out how rediculous you sound when you complain about 150k being lower middle class. 150k no matter where you live is not lower middle class. Its not rich either but you are not even close to being lower middle class.

Oh and by the way if you really are paying 45% in taxes you need to find a better accountant. I only point out your false tax statement because you are using that to attempt to make people feel bad for you when you are making 150k and are in the top 10% of earners in the country.

Be happy that you are very well off compared to the average American. Don't feel guilty about making money its a good thing but don't attempt to get others to simpathies with you when you are well off.

Why don't more people save for college when their kids are young? I have two toddlers and both have over $5,000 in their 529 plans already. At $200/month per kid (which is only 4% of my income) and an estimated 6% return I should be able to cover in-state tuition in 2027 when they graduate high school. We are on track to pay off our 30-year mortgage in 17 years (we overpay by $260/month) during the spring of their senior year. The money that went to the monthly mortgage should cover about half of room and board cost; they will be responsible for the other half of room and board. Any grants or scholarships will reduce their total cost.

So at a low present-day cost that doesn't impact my lifestyle, my kids should have minimal college debt and I will have a paid off house. It kills me when my friends and co-workers who make over $100,000 aren't saving anything for their kids college so they can drive $50,000 SUVs and live in a McMansion.

We don't own SUVs or live in a McMansion. We have put away $ for our kids' college education. About $25-30k per kid over the last 20 years. The problem is that college costs $20-30k PER year. If you live the middle class life like most Americans, it's impossible to put away enough for 4 kids.

The point of the post is not to whine about how much college costs, but to warn people that I don't think colleges are delivering value for what it costs. My opinion on this wouldn't be different if I had $50 million in the bank.

Destined for Destitution wrote:We don't own SUVs or live in a McMansion. We have put away $ for our kids' college education. About $25-30k per kid over the last 20 years. The problem is that some colleges, like the ones my kids attend, costs $20-30k PER year. If you live the middle class life like most Americans, which I'm not in, it's impossible to put away enough for 4 kids.

The point of the post is not to whine about how much college costs, but to warn people that I don't think colleges are delivering value for what it costs. My opinion on this wouldn't be different if I had $50 million in the bank.

Fixed.

And you don't really believe the last paragraph. Otherwise, why let you kids make such a horrible decision, especially if it's not worth it.

hoosier123 wrote:

Destined for Destitution wrote:We don't own SUVs or live in a McMansion. We have put away $ for our kids' college education. About $25-30k per kid over the last 20 years. The problem is that some colleges, like the ones my kids attend, costs $20-30k PER year. If you live the middle class life like most Americans, which I'm not in, it's impossible to put away enough for 4 kids.

The point of the post is not to whine about how much college costs, but to warn people that I don't think colleges are delivering value for what it costs. My opinion on this wouldn't be different if I had $50 million in the bank.

Fixed.

And you don't really believe the last paragraph. Otherwise, why let you kids make such a horrible decision, especially if it's not worth it.

Because it is not until recently that I fully came to this conclusion, and I'm not the only one in the family who gets a say in this decision. It's not 1955. My wife gets a vote too. Make all the jokes you want about that.

I do find it amazing how so many young people with no kids think they have it all figured out and will know exactly what they'll do in these situations. My brother has never had kids and he's always trying to give me advice on how I should raise my kids. I have to tell him to SFTU half the time.

I appreciate some of the good thoughts on this thread, don't get me wrong. For those youngsters without kids, all I can say is that don't get too confident. Life has a way of delivering surprises and you will probably make some decisions that look counter-intuitive in hindsight.