Reply #67: So? Your point is?

[realcountrymusic]

People who "help" their kids through college must be cut down to size? The Khmer Rouge had a policy of placing all people who wore glasses in "reeducation camps" (where most of them died) as a surefire way to silence all intellectual and middle class critics of their brutal (but populist) regime. This tone of *ressentiment* is really surprising to me. MOST American parents "help" their kids through college, and most would see nothing wrong with any other family doing so to the best of its ability.

Harvard, my alma mater (and I'm from the middle middle class, went to public schools) makes almost all of its financial awards (other than sports scholarships and a few merit scholarships) based on financial need. If your family makes less than $40K, you pay NO tuition at a school that costs a Kerry or a Bush over $30K a year in tuition. Back in the 80's, it cost me about $8K a year when tuition was $18K The reasoning behind admitting wealthy "legacy" kids (which I have problems with) is that these people's money, both tuition and future gifts, helps sustain the allocation of need-based financial aid. As someone above said, it's actually more expensive for middle-class kids to attend most state universities these days.

You can tell a lot about the source of some of the knee-jerk thinking in this thread by reading between the lines. My position: achievement based on merit is never bad, no matter how rich or poor you are. Resentment of achievement based on merit is reactionary and dangerous.

I will cease fire.

RCM