Kids from households making $200,000/yr may not be Maybach rich, but they don't need Pell Grants. and I certainly wouldn't describe their state as "purgatory" just because they aren't getting handouts.

The basis for giving this kind of handout (which I understand along with the general opposition to any handouts) is to improve class mobility and give poor kids a chance (after all, they did not choose to be born to the 'wrong' family). What reason is there for people with plenty of money to get that sort of handout? This I don't understand.

just because they aren't getting handouts.

Why is it when the kid is poor, its financial aid, if the kid is middle class, its a handout? The language seems twisted to articulate your point, rather than the point speaking on its own.

Also, let's take my situation. My mother made $102,000 last year. We're well off, by any metric. Making 100% over the median income makes you upper middle class.

My in-state total costs for my public university are $10,099 a semester. I didn't choose the crazy private school, I didn't go out of state, I'm at literally the cheapest school I can be at.

It still cost 27% of her net income per year. That's a reasonable amount of money? I don't think it is.

Now, you can say you're supposed to save beforehand, except back then we were poor as dirt and couldn't afford to. Does that get factored in into any kind of federal aid? Nope. Last years tax return, only.

I have enough merit based scholarships that she can afford to send me there, but I think it's ridiculous to ignore that there is a larger problem in academic costs.

EDIT: The argument could also be made that students should be working through school to offset the costs. I personally find that rather backward, (Why is college the only education not funded by taxes?) but it's the most practical solution currently available.

$10,099/semester is a reasonable amount of money for a college education, at current market prices. You could have gotten cheaper but presumably you did not want to - your choice. At $102,000 it is completely affordable. When one has kids, and wishes them to college, one is normally and reasonably expected to save up for that purpose.

So your argument seems to reduce to 'my mother shouldn't pay this money.' That implies someone else should pay it. Why? What makes it so much not reasonable?

After your total costs are paid, your mother is still making $81,802/yr. She can't live on $81,802/yr? She should be getting money from people who don't even make $81,802/yr because you are going to college and you think that the cost of tuition is not 'reasonable'? You should be getting that money ahead of people who are poorer and not getting any aid?

Commentary on your word choice isn't a distraction, but your brazen attempt to dismiss it is rather amusing.

$10,099/semester is a reasonable amount of money for a college education, at current market prices.

That caveat there is the only way you can possibly say that. For current market prices, it's not bad. What I'm saying is that the market is charging too much for college education.

You could have gotten cheaper but presumably you did not want to - your choice.

And still go to a university? You're incorrect.

When one has kids, and wishes them to college, one is normally and reasonably expected to save up for that purpose.

Are we just going to completely ignore my comments there? I addressed this in my earlier statements. Federal funding does not consider past income, yet there is an expectation that college should be saved for then. That's dissonant.

So your argument seems to reduce to 'my mother shouldn't pay this money.'

And your argument seems to reduce to "your mother should pay this money". When you reduce things to their simplest terms, everything sounds stupid. It's a logical fallacy.

That implies someone else should pay it. Why? What makes it so much not reasonable?

It should be a distributed burden across the populace via tax, for the exact same reasons that all other education spending is done that way. Education should be a public service, as it's the cornerstone of a modern economy.

After your total costs are paid, your mother is still making $81,802/yr. She can't live on $81,802/yr?

This is a foolish argument. First, since it's a post tax expense, the more relevant number is net pay, which works out to be roughly $55,000/year. Which she can live on, but that's not the point.

Education is completely inelastic. It is a requirement for any kind of middle class job in this country. If it costs $10,000 a year, or $50,000 a year, I have to pay it, if I don't want to be a second class citizen in a post-industrial economy.

This is why it needs federal regulation (Or more ideally, provided for via a tax), for the same reasons that utilities and the rest of the education system are.

She should be getting money from people who don't even make $81,802/yr because you are going to college and you think that the cost of tuition is not 'reasonable'?

...That's not how it works. Do you receive money because everyone helped pay for the road you use to drive to work? Without it, you would have no job and no income. But you aren't arguing that you should pay for your own road.

Neither name is appropriate. It's plain old price discrimination. The school wants to charge more money to people who have more money.

Every business loves to do this. The only thing unusual about college is that if they crank the price up to $150,000 and then discount it to $80,000, some people think the school has "given" you $70,000.

When the government outlaws price discrimination, it is interfering with the freedom of the market.

I think it's pretty clear there is a problem in education finance. That problem affects a lot of people of different racial backgrounds. Comments like that create discord among the very people you are claiming to want to help.

I don't think you can have a discussion about education without bringing up issues of race and class. I admit, that was a pretty untactful way to bring it up.

It's an uncomfortable subject. I'll handle it more sensitively next time.

I take no issue with the way you worded it (though I'm sure some people would, so I wouldn't use that phrasing on my company's blog). I take issue with the lack of evidence on that particular point. It happens. The rest of it was good, and your cause is admirable.