roarah, I think it's been pretty well validated that tuition for college has increased at a rate that far outpaces inflation and income increases since 1987. My children's cost of attending a public state college runs about $30k per child per year. The tuition will no doubt rise even more during their student years and we are bracing ourselves. I don't know what kind of income one would need to make a $60k tuition bill manageable. And this is a state supported university, ie a relative 'bargain' compared to a private college.

It is horrible to know we are going into massive debt to educate our children. They are both interested in math and science and the local community college really didn't offer the lab access or resources of the big state college which was founded, by the way, to provide opportunities for middle class kids like mine but we are now being priced out of education unless we're willing to take on almost half a million dollars of bills and debt. My husband and I will be paying their bills for a looooong time and the government loans they are entitled to cover only 5k annually. A fraction of the total tuition cost.

I have always thought being able to send your children to college without gutting your savings or mortgaging your house is a sign of membership in the middle class but sadly, I would say that the middle class is being priced out of the 4 year college programs unless they can take on significant debt.

Sorry, I meant quarter of a million dollars for 2 kids at about $30k each year for 4 years. Not half a million.

My husband and I both have advanced degrees and professional careers. By those measures, we might be considered upper middle class. But we are among those who are impoverishing ourselves by paying for our 2 kids' college educations, to the tune of about $80K a year for their tuition (and they both have merit scholarships). My parents, who were solidly middle class, put 5 children through 4-year colleges, all paid for by my mother's part-time job as a tax accountant.

OMG. Don't get me started about the cost of sending kids through College. We saved their entire lives and it still wasn't enough. Seriously, we started accounts and put in $75. Each week into an account, starting from birth.

Yikes.

We are neither rich or poor, so solidly middle class.

"Going into massive debt to educate children" and going into massive debt to pay for serious illness, effects way too many people in this country. These soaring costs need to be addressed. Education and medical care should not rob people blind.

Those nieces of mine attending schools in NYC? $52,000 a year for one, and $42,000 for the other. Crazy. The older one graduated from a prestigious highschool with a 4.2 GPA, perfect SAT score, and I am sure she has some scholarships, so that helps. Her younger sis got into the same cream of the crop highschool, but (cringe!) made a few B's while there. She is not the scholar her sis is, so I think the whole enchilada for her is on mom & dad's dime.

Now the older one, a junior, wants to go to law school, but her dad is encouraging her to get a job on Wall Street (like him!) after graduation. He said she can take a series of exams and become a portfolio manager, no graduate degree required.

I feel sad about that...I know his proposed plan is due to the high cost of law school tuition on top of the undergrad bills. She'd like to go to Columbia, and I'm sure she could get in. (But they are not the Clintons!)

Judithn, The cost of tuition has always been very expensive, usually about half the average income. In 1990 the average income for a family was roughly 25,000 while average 4 year tuition was 12,300. With inflation accounted for it now feels like a bit over 50%, but it is actually less than 50% of our average income now and not as far off as we are lead to believe. Also, it is now easier to get aid than it was for the middle class in the 90s so this off sets the less than 2% increase.In 2011 average family income was $51,415, it increased at about 4% while college increased at about 5% and was on average, for a four year university, $21,650.

roarah, I don't know the statistics. The cost of college depends a little on whether you go to a private or public school. We opted for the public, even though our child was accepted at private (and considerably more expensive) schools. Our total cost of her attending is, as I said, about 30k. Following your logic, If 30k is half of the average income then is the average income in this country 60k? How much is left after taxes and healthcare and retirement saving? And what if you have two children? Three children?

Have you put any children through college roarah?

In our case, add to that the fact that the value of our house has dropped a third (thankfully we're not under water at least), our retirement accounts have tanked, and our healthcare costs are rising. We are losing ground every day.

We have gone to college, worked hard, lived within our means, invested conservatively, paid cash for big ticket items like cars, and yet...we're losing ground.

Plus, any possibility for increasing income/earning potential has totally stalled due to the economy. We are in that little window of time at a point in our lives when we should have been pretty well established but instead, we're holding on tight and being thankful that at least one of us has a job.

As for the "easier to get aid" part -- I hear that line repeated in the mediasphere too. We didn't get a penny of aid nor do we expect to. Because we've been conservative, careful, responsible, and haven't lived wastefully. Being responsible works against you in this society.

Our children are at state schools so we took the cheapest available option for their education and it is still an enormous cost. In my day, state universities were financially accessible. Not any more.

We were always willing to drive old beat up cars, go without the latest fashions or decor, forgo dinners out and expensive vacations, and do our own cleaning, gardening, home repair. Being frugal by nature this hasn't been such a burden.

But having to spend so MUCH (we've been saving since they were born and it's just not enough!) on education for the SEVEN years that our kids are in college (combined) -- well, if we can't do it I wonder how many can. Well, we know they can't. Look at the student loan issues. That's the next big bubble to burst -- student loans are built on ground as shaky as the mortgage crisis. Americans will pay to bail out the banks when the student loan bubble bursts when it would have perhaps been better to work out a better educational financing policy at the front end to make so many loans, and loans of such high dollar amounts, unnecessary.

But I guess whether Americans are willing to do that depends on whether you think education benefits the individual only or if you think education benefits the society. I don't know how we're going to either 1) remain competitive as a country or 2) solve our social, environmental, infrastructure problems if we are not investing in an educated population. We have serious problems that can't be solved without it.

So yes, I admire the European countries who make education and healthcare available to all their citizens at vastly reduced costs (not to mention early childhood care). Americans can have cheap electronics, cars, etc. and other toys to distract and entertain us but if we want access to healthcare and education and not to live in poverty in retirement we are entirely on our own.

I know that my state tuition in 1987 was 12,000 plus but yale was in the 20s even then. If the average income was 24,000 and some community schools were much less, same as today. College has always been for a certain class.
My neice is in school in her home land of England and it is expensive too, well over 15,000 US dolars in expenses per year on top of all their taxes. Gas is over $9 per gallon due to tax and the VAT is close to 20% and middle class pay more than we do in income tax aswell. Tuition is no longer covered for many like it use to be and room and board which makes up a large % of our college costs were never really covered. My husband back in the 1990s paid 5,000 pound per year for university and the exchange than was about 1.65. So just less than 5k/year my costs. It is not as inexpensive to live in England as it is here. Americans as a whole even with tuition and health care costs have more disposable income. It stinks everywhere.

Here is a link that might be useful: cost of english universities in pounds @ about 1.50exchange)

Judithn, my heart goes out to you. You are being responsible and doing your very best. Feel good about that! I do wish your college costs were lower...it isn't fair, imo, that tuition can be so high, as I stated earlier.

As far as your house value, that's only a "paper loss" until you sell...and hopefully by then, your value will have bounced back in large measure. I do think the housing market is recovering slowly, but will never be what it was.

I bought a house in 2006 (at the market peak!) and it is now worth $75,000 less than what I paid for it. I've put a fair sum of money into it too. In addition to doing some remodeling, I try to take good care of maintenance issues, so there's always something (monthly it seems!) to spend on.

Most recent example: this month's "mole trapping!" A mole ruined 75% of my back lawn, so I called a service to capture what I imagined to be a village of the critters. Nope. Just one little pest that cost me $329.00 to snare. Also recently spent $1,000 to "clean up" my pine trees. Two months ago it was $1600 for rotten wood repairs. Last month $1000 for a new garage door. It just goes on and on.

Love the remark Kswl made one time..."Every house is a fixer upper!" So true. Ah, the joys of home ownership, lol!

But I digress. Hang in there and be proud of your accomplishments, Judithn. There are challenges, but you are addressing them. You're doing a great job!!!

I forgot to attatch the link of disposable incomes by country. We are second only to Luxembourg where everyone is very well off. It is impartial and from the OECD.

Here is a link that might be useful: Disposable income by country reported by the OECD

I don't know about the issue in England. I have a friend whose daughter went to school in the last 5 years in Nottingham and her tuition cost less than $5000 (dollars, not pounds) per year. She lived at home to further reduce costs.

My state college is at the top of the list for costs among American state colleges (and that is due to a state-wide de-prioritization of education and cost-cutting). Since it is 4+ hours from our house, living at home isn't an option and that doubles the cost. My daughter's books (she is a science student so now it's not just books but also access codes to online texts and workbooks) run about $3000 a year. That whole textbook publishing business is another racket. Fiction and non-fiction book sales may be floundering but textbook publishers are raking it in. Captive audience.
In any event, I know people have relocated to states with better systems like Virginia and North Carolina just prior to their children's graduation from high school mainly to take advantage of their more modest tuition and costs of living.

As for foreign universities, I am more familiar with the situation in the Netherlands because I have family there. The expense for my nephews, both of whom are in large urban universities, are about $250 a month. For everything: tuition, housing, food. That's $250 each so say about $500 a month for both, total. Their Dad thought I was punking him when I stated what we pay. Europeans can't believe it. Plus, while gas may cost more, public transportation is rapid and easily accessible so they don't (at least the people I know don't) drive so much. While the Netherlands is having economic problems (related to banking, collapse of Greece, Spain, Italy banking systems, etc.), the culture is based on the idea of what they call "the grote middelstand" or, the "big middle." the "big middle" is what everyone aspires too and they're policies are definitely designed to protect and bolster the middle class.

Here, all I see is slippage. If education has always been the key to a middle class income and lifestyle and middle class can't afford education anymore then what happens?

I do not disagree that it is expensive but it has always been a middle class problem and complaint. If you child lived at home it would save you the same as it is saving your friend in Nottingham, room and board is a great chunk of the cost and you friend's cost is lower because they do not pay for R&B if they did it is fully up to the student in the Uk to cover that cost plus some tuition. My european friends can not believe how little we pay in annual taxes and for gas and food and goods! we all pay through our noses no matter where we live, But the fact is we, as Americans, have more disposable income after all is said and done, including health and education costs, than everywhere in the world other than Luxembourg, where I wish to live:). We, in America, have it comparatively better than we know or are taught to believe. Middle class is shrinking but that is also because the upper class has grown to include more families. Look at the charts I linked they are from a very reliable source.

Wow - your tuition is expensive. When I graduated in 1976 with a B.Comm from my local university, my part-time wage was $1.80/hr and my tuition was $562.00, and commerce was the most expensive undergrad degree, and I could budget $100 for books. Being a 20 minute drive to the university I lived at home and with some scholarship money I paid for my university myself with no debt.

The current tuition for a commerce degree, still the most expensive undergrad degree, is now $7000 a year plus $2000 for books. Minimum wage is now $10.25/hr. Tuition has gone up more than 10 times but minimum wage, which most students make, has not.

It's the extras that are so expensive for students, housing is extremely expensive, food, gas, etc. Alot of parents can't afford to help their kids with tuition, we were fortunate that we could help our kids.

"Visible durable goods absolutely do NOT correlate to net worth within most classes." I'm not going to get into a debate over working moms vs SAHM (I've been both) but there are alot of moms in my neighbourhood who work to have those visible durable goods - the fancy cars and the fancy holidays.

My kids used to question why they couldn't have the fancy things and it's because my DH and I chose to have me at home which precluded the fancy stuff. We would save our money and every 4-5 years do a nice family holiday but there were no dinners out etc. It's expensive raising a family and we all make choices based on our own priorities and needs. Part way through high school my kids finally appreciated the fact that I chose to stay at home and that they were, in fact, not so hard done by.

It is interesting reading people's own experiences and feelings about being middle class. Both my DH and I were raised in the "rich" part of our city and I have no desire to live there or to raise my kids there. A lot of it is false fronts being presented by the people who live there, a lot of it is keeping up with the Jones', a lot of it is thinking that you are better than anyone else because you can say that you live there, but really the struggles are the same in terms of raising your family.

Thank you for your nice comments stinky gardener. I really appreciate that.

But are we middle class? As long as our kids are in school, the answer is: barely.

Unfortunately, roarah, living at home while going to college was not an option for my children because the flagship state university is 4+ hours away. This is partly due to their choice of study. They are fledgling scientists. Was staying home an option? The regional community college nearer our home lacks labs and scientific equipment. Although they offer a strong liberal arts program there are very few science classes and those that are offered are basic. That might not affect the quality for some students but for those who needs to acquire lab skills and have access to undergraduate research jobs, it does.

My kids are interested in green chemistry, ie: finding ways to solve industrial problems that do not require the use of materials and chemicals that are harmful to humans and the environment. They are working very hard on problems that will hopefully benefit us all. Maybe someday something my kids helped to invent will allow the phase out of syrofoam by replacing it with a biodegradable material with a mycelium (mushroom) base. Maybe it'll mean the end of the giant swales of plastic found far out in the ocean. Maybe they'll figure out a way to clean toxic chemical spills using algae. Or manufacture biodiesel fuels made of algae grown in the dark.

What worries me is that we need thousands of earnest, intelligent, caring, problem-solvers like these kids to attack our problems and too many are barred from learning what they need to know to help us all due to the high costs of higher education. I hear about subsidies for students in the sciences, esp. women. Our experience is that it's all talk, talk, talk.

And by the way, you may not have intended this, so forgive me if I'm off here, but to me the phrase "middle class problem and complaint" comes off to me (and perhaps not to others, but to me) as condescending because a "complaint" is generally perceived to be something that is gratuitous and without any basis in reality. Do you have some resentment on this subject? I think it's been pretty well documented that college tuition rates have exceeded incomes and outpace inflation substantially.

So, complaint? How about pressing social issue that impacts everyone.

You and I are not likely to see eye to eye on this one (nor do we need to) but yes, my husband and I feel that in essence, education is no longer accessible to many members of the middle class.

Some of the most responsible people I know are choosing to have only one child, because that's all they can afford, which has other untended social consequences...

My kids used to question why they couldn't have the fancy things and it's because my DH and I chose to have me at home which precluded the fancy stuff.

I was also a SAHM while the kids were growing up. When they asked why we didn't go to Hawaii, have a boat, etc. I would tell them that we could have those things now, but that they better get really good jobs when they grew up, because they would be supporting their dad and me when we grew old. That idea certainly stopped them cold! ;)

Sorry I did not mean to sound that way but I can see why you felt that was my implication I was only trying to point out that college costs,as a rule of thumb, historically grow at almost twice that of inflation, and that it has always been very expensive for all classes in all nations. I prefer our system for the disposable income between us and the citizens of the Netherlands, on average equals $7,000/year more for US citizens and that times about 43 working years equals $301,000 in our pockets compared to college costs for two children at 30k/year and tax credits that is still a net gain in my opinion of $61,000 plus. But yes life is expensive every where and sadly,I do not think that is going to change.

Stinky, you said this about your niece:

"Now the older one, a junior, wants to go to law school, but her dad is encouraging her to get a job on Wall Street (like him!) after graduation. He said she can take a series of exams and become a portfolio manager, no graduate degree required".

All the finance people I know in that position have an MBA from a top school, in addition to the CFA exams. I'm not sure the Dad has the correct information ...

In regard to the cost of textbooks, rest assured that the publishers are not "raking it in." Costs of creating a textbook (science and medical textbooks being the most expensive to create) are astronomical, with costs in the millions--creating artwork, running photo shoots, asking scientists to study photos and and produce magnifications, paying an army of editors and proofreaders to go through the text, and to prepare ancillary materials that the students and professors get for free. The profits that publishers actually get are pretty slim after royalties are paid to the author(s) and all the staff and freelancers (like me) are paid, permissions fees, compositors... on and on. Then, look at what college bookstores do: They rent or lease the books to students, or buy back used books--and none of those monies go to the publisher at all. The publisher gets paid once--the bookstores/distributors sell the books again and again. My daughter is pre-med, so her book expenses are sky-high, but often in the sciences, students keep their books for reference. She has been asked to tutor cell biology, and she uses her textbook to run her sessions.

Judith, your frustration is very clear, and I think it is always easier to extrapolate from one's personal experience to form an opinion about an entire issue. However, roarah is not wrong in most of the points made about cost of college etc. Our society has increasingly accepted that going to college is a right, not a privilege. As an employee of higher education I certainly don't like to see that assumption change! However it does assume some precepts that may or may not hold true for individuals and for society.

To start, higher education degrees are often assumed and expected to result in guaranteed improved job prospects. However keep in mind, the ideal of a university education is not to produce someone who can earn X per year; it is to produce an educated citizen. Someone whose critical thinking and analytical skills are honed and who has been exposed to challenging concepts and principles. Will this create a better paid individual? Usually, yes. But universities are not trade schools and despite the growing need and quasi-requirement of a college degree for many jobs, higher education is not always an automatic ticket to more money.

Judith, are you aware that the career path for chemists is not great? To start with, 'pure' science grads (as opposed to applied technical grads like engineers and computer scientists) face a dismal market with a BS. To be competitive, usually a science grad should plan on a master's or PhD. And even that doesn't guarantee a high paying job. The employment projection for the upcoming decade for chemists is less than 1/3 of the overall employment projection. Here is the quote from the latest edition of the Occupational Outlook Handbook, which is a Bureau of Labor Statistics publication reflecting statistical information and analysis:

"Employment of chemists and materials scientists is expected to increase by 4 percent from 2010 to 2020, slower than the average for all occupations."

So despite any individual's dreams it is usually helpful to be aware of the reality of what the future is likely to hold for the chosen profession in which one chooses to educate him/herself. Doesn't mean students should not follow a dream. It does mean that taking on enormous debt that will realistically never be paid back based on one's job prospects isn't a sustainable model. Or, expending a family's entire resources to provide education in a field that isn't going to provide career opportunities should be a decision that a family makes with full awareness of the consequences.

As for the SAH drift, please please please let's not go there. The snarky trope about how "we sacrificed so I could be home and look at all those working women doing it for a fancy car" is obnoxious and insulting. Staying at home-great if it works for your family. Working outside the home-great if it works for your family. There isn't anything intrinsically nobler or better about being SAH, just as being a mother while employed outside the home isn't nobler or better either. Let's not fire up the great mommy war engine on that again.

Yes, but costs of gas, groceries, and health insurance are increasingly eating into our budget. We live in a modest home which fortunately means lower utility bills, our newest car is 2006, and we don't take vacations unless it is either to see relatives (not really a vacation though we love them) or when I have conference/business travel. I am really trying to plan for next summer that we can take a "real" vacation.

I just paid off my students loans this week (woo-hoo) but DH has years to go. If we stay in our current home, our mortgage will be paid off sooner than his loans.

And we don't even have kids. However, at least people with kids get tax credits while we do not. It seems we are penalized tax-wise for living modestly and having no kids.

My knee-jerk response to the OP's question would be, "Yes." That answer is based on its being a state-of-mind and values rather than a number, because in our 36 yr. marriage my husband and I have been through highs and lows income and money-wise.

We married young (people didn't just live together in those "olden days"..)and completed our educations while each working a full and part-time job. It was a struggle, but we finally paid off our school loans, had our first child and bought a starter home - which we lived in for 20 yrs. We did it all on our own and though we didn't have much money then, we had the dream of a good life and promising future for our family. That's what "Middle Class" symbolized to me then, and still does now.

judithn's posts mirror a lot of what happened in our family. We raised bright, thoughtful kids who aspired to contribute something to the world. We committed to providing them a 4 yr. college education. While they didn't get the cars, electronics, trips, etc., many of their peers did, our gift was to launch them into the world debt-free. We are glad we did it, but it set us back a bundle and retirement is a far off dream.

runninginplace's post was of particular interest, as our son and DIL both hold PhD's (from top U.S. universities) in Chemistry. They have been living and working abroad doing fuel cell research. Their hope & preference was to stay here in the States, but Europe is far ahead of us in clean energy research and development and that is where most of the job opportunities are in that field right now.

Their experiences living in Europe have been eye-opening to our whole family. I, and they, still think the U.S. is the best country to live in. But I worry about our seeming unwillingness, as a country, to be more open minded to learning about and implementing what works there and integrating some of those principles into making things better here. As a number of people posted above, we seem to put more value on having things, lots of things we don't need, instead of doing and creating things that will enable a "Middle Class" to continue to thrive here.

Amck, that is really interesting about your son and DIL's careers in Europe. We just don't seem to have the political will to do initiate some of the alterative energy sources here since our lawmakers are so influenced by the lobbyists for the oil and natural gas industry.

For those of you who can help your kids with college, that was great. Our families could not do that. We got financial aid, but we did have to take loans. I am very clear to tell my undergrads I just paid off my loans at age 49. It's not fun! Although the costs were so much lower, even for DH who graduated from law school only 10 years ago. The in-state tuition has quadrupled since he went! Plus, one cannot work, so you need money for living expenses. How does anyone pay that for law school knowing that the job market is horrible. Only thing that seems secure is health care, but my students who want Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) 3-year programs are going to pay at least $20-30K tuition per year plus living expenses. Even DPT might start out at $50-60K. But back when I was an undergrad 25 years ago, PT was just a B.S. There is no difference in reimbursement if you have a B.S., M.S. or DPT.

Totally believable that student loans are the next debt crisis.

Thankfully, none of our children have had to take out loans for their college education. And, even though we could afford a new car for our son who is still in college, he drives a 1998 Camry with 210k miles on it with a partial rear bumper and other assorted dings and dents. We would rather provide him with experiences than things; with the tools for living rather than toys for playing. He knows better than to complain about his car or his modest living allowance, and is grateful for the wonderful schools, camps, summer programs and trips abroad he has experienced. The living is his to make some day, and in the meantime his "reduced circumstances" keep him humble. We have frequently told our children that one of the major forces in a child's life is the one s/he has no control over--- the parents. We've been able to do a lot for our kids but their luck in having well-off parents doesn't make them one iota "better" than anyone else, and they DO realize that. FWIW.

Someone else above tried to define class. Reminds me of this humor:

Underclass - Your name is on your shirt
Middle Class - Your name in on your door
Upper Class - Your name is on the building

I tend to agree with the poster who talked about the more English way of describing class; eg a combination of heredity, education, achievement, and character. Even on Wall Street and in the hedge fund industry, none of my friends or colleagues would ever equate monetary success with class. And I cannot imagine anyone ever raising their hand to say "me, over here, I'm not middle class".

As for the cost of an education, i think it threatens our goal of equal opportunity. It also leads people to study only things that are lucrative. I am of two minds on that. Thank goodness my own Dad convinced me to major in economics and not literature. Yet, shouldn't somebody somewhere study literature? Is university vocational school? Answer - yes, if it is my kids we are talking about. No, as a philosophical matter.

As for SAHMs, both DH and I retired with three kids in elementary school, so we could be uber-SAH-parents. We have really enjoyed it, but after a while we had to add in other things to keep us busy and mentally engaged. Most parents work for the money (and far be it for me to decide what my neighbors need and what is frivolous). But some parents work because they are very good at something and get a great deal of satisfaction from it; because it is part of who they are.

Chispa, I may also have the job title wrong. Upshot is, daddy doesn't want more school tuition to fund. Who knows, maybe my niece will work on Wall Street, make some money, and decide to send herself to law school down the road. People do that all the time, right? She has a good head on her shoulders, and like everyone else, her future is ultimately in her own hands.

SAH people (not just parents) vs. working people? To me, it's never the what, but the how. Either way of life can be noble (or not so!). *How* do you do what you do? With love and heart, with thought and care? We all have seen people in the workforce who have a chip on their shoulder and a determination to take the longest lunch hours possible followed up by several stops at the water cooler. They then come home claiming to be "too tired" to pitch in with dinner, clean-up, or any other chores. They get up and go through the same motions the next day. We also know there are SAH people watching the proverbial soaps and eating bon bons.

We have to look beyond the title into the specifics of "how" a person approaches their days, their life, to find the passion, the engagement, the presence, (or lack of all the above,) brought to task. In my view, that's all that counts...living fully, being present, whatever one does.

"As for the cost of an education, i think it threatens our goal of equal opportunity."

I absolutely agree with this, and mtnredux's ambivalent remarks about choosing an area of study that is lucrative, rather than engaging. We need an educated electorate, productive citizens who contribute to the tax base, AND imaginative thinkers. I have found people who fit into all three categories from all walks of life.

However, when I hear what amounts to sob stories of people who are $100K in debt for a private college education with an undergraduate major in French literature and no plans to teach or go on for an advanced degree, it's hard to be sympathetic. I think that overall it is more important to have a realistic PLAN to support oneself after college, regardless of one's major.

Uhoh, I have avoided coming into this discussion, but I do need to say that my undergraduate degree is in French (literature and language) :) I attended a private college and had no plans to teach or go to graduate school in French. Although I ended up going to graduate school years later, I would not trade all those classes, including Philosophy, Political Science, German, Latin (that was in high school, actually), and many English classes on literature and poetry, for anything in the world. If someone plans to reach the top of any ladder, she/he had better be prepared to discuss all of the above at some point. Those subjects enhance my quality of life and understanding of the world. They give me ways to approach life that benefit me and those around me. I am at ease in foreign countries and in my own country with just about anyone from any walk of life. I am able to hold my own in almost any general discussion and classical references don't confuse me.

I am a strong supporter of a liberal arts education. I would like to see everyone have the ability to go to college and study what they love.

My DH graduated with a degree in Art Sculpture. He managed to support himself.

I totally agree, Cyn, but it takes guts to do that, especially in today's economy. When it was easier to attain a "middle class life" just by working hard and consistently, and when graduating from college did not entail a financial yoke, you could more readily choose majors for loftier reasons than "job placement".

I wish more people could do that today, but for many it is just not practical. That, I think, is a terrible shame.

Going to college and studying French, Philosophy, Political Science, German, Latin, English classes on literature and poetry is getting an education.

Much of the rest is job training, sort of like professional vo-tech. And I say that as one who has 2 degrees in some of the rest.

I think part of the definition of being middle class is anxiety about being placed in the "wrong" sub-segment of it by other people. That is, not in the part you place yourself in.

Cynthia and jmc, I am sorry that I did not make it clear that I see NOTHING wrong or misguided about majoring in French literature or any other liberal arts discipline. I chose that as an example because of an article I read about an NYU grad with that much student loan debt who apparently had no job plans whatsoever and did not seem to realize that she was going to have to pay back all the money with interest. She and her mother were both whingeing in print about this sad state of affairs, particularly the monthly loan payment---- which could easily have been predicted from the loan documents she signed. As i remember the article, she wasnt interested in any career path that would naturally ensue from her field of study and did not seem to understand that she deliberately chose a "luxury education," both in terms of cost and marginal professional utility. She took no responsibility for her own choices, blaming instead the school and the bank for making her education possible.

As I said, it makes no difference-- to me, anyway--- what anyone chooses as a major. Everyone needs a plan to support himself or herself, regardless of the extent or nature of their higher education. I went to a private liberal arts college and majored in English literature, and although the work I am doing now seems light years away from Coleridge, that education still informs and enriches my life. In 2009 I took a summer sabbatical and attended Oxford classes in English literature that provided me with some of my best adult memories outside family life. Education is never a waste; but education without any ability to support oneself seems a shame.

amck - That is very interesting about your sons having to go to Europe to find work. It's very sad to hear that people with so much to contribute are forced to leave. It's basically a Brain Drain. Who would ever have thought that Americans would be leaving the US to find work in Europe? The history of this country has had people flocking here for greater opportunity. That's a big change. And yes, it makes sense that industries looking at sustainable energy are better supported and subsidized in Europe. Europe is more forward thinking in that regard. They've had to be.

When I was growing up, affording college was always a stretch for most middle class families. College was a given only for "rich people". There was a time in this country when anyone was able to graduate from high school and get a job that could support a family, and it might start out blue-collar, but you could work your way up to management. This was the American Way.

In the 1970's I went through an excellent graphics arts program in my high school (and it was not the Vo-Tech) and I got a good job in that industry when I graduated. My parents were so happy that I was employed and they didn't have to pay for college, and at 19 I moved out to my own apartment and supported myself well. Until I was looking for a job in the mid-1990's was it important to any prospective employers where I went to college. I was baffled - why would it matter what I might have studied 20 years ago compared to the current real-life experience on my resume and in my portfolio? I'm in design, not rocket science! But I was turned down for several jobs because of this - a degree was now a basic requirement. So now it's necessary and it's even harder to afford it -- college was always a hefty investment in time and money, but now our incomes have stayed static, basics like food and fuel are more expensive, and financial aid is less available.

My SIL is a chemistry PHD and her job in England has been outsourced to India. Sadly, losing jobs to china and India, is a whole first world problem.

I think what we need is a better opinion of choosing a vocational school over a university. Even with our high cost of tuition, America has a greater % of students attending college than almost anywhere. Thus, we also have a high dropout rate too. There should be no shame in learning a trade but in our society it is looked at as some sort of a failure. The prereqisite that everyone needs to have a college degree has cheapened a BA and BS, for it is now the equivalence of a high school diploma.

Economics should never decide who should and should not attend university, but neither should social expectations. College should not be for everyone because not everyone is suited for a college degree. There is no shame is learning a skilled trade.However, it is a shame that it is so unaccepted in this country.

College should not be for everyone because not everyone is suited for a college degree. There is no shame is learning a skilled trade.However, it is a shame that it is so unaccepted in this country.

In that statement you imply that only dumb people go to trade school and that I think, the stigma associated with Heating and Air instead of German literature, is part of the problem.
30 years ago in H.S., I was definitely aware of the snobbery/mockery towards those in trade school. I imagine it's worse today.

That is not at all what I hoped to imply. My husband worked as a plumber for six years before he went to Oxford. I hold a high esteem for trade workers. My Dh, at sixteen, was not a good student even with a high IQ, he was not meant for a-levels at that time and this is true of many non-motivated students. I always wanted to be a hair dresser but it was expected in my family, even my great granparents finished univesity, that college would follow high school so I have two higher learning degrees I no longer use. While, I think, if I had trained in what my first choice was to study I may still be enjoying my profession. I am thinking about learning that profession now in my 40s.

The way you read my statement also proves my point in how society views trades:(.

Found an article online regarding middle class as it relates to other countries but some of the ideas are relevant to this discussion.
Middle classes around the world
It talks about middle class as being "tolerant for delayed gratification, having middle class values with emphasis on accumulation of human capital and savings, and a willingness to pay extra for quality to feed investment in production and raise income levels for all." It also mentions "steady, well-paying job". By those points middle class is in turmoil. Society struggles with delayed gratification...it's a microwave or fast food society. Accumulation of human capital comes at the sacrifice of (future)savings. Many are unable to pay for quality and rely on discount stores to fit their budgets. Changes in demographics, globalization, corporate America and other factors leave middle class with less clout to raise income levels for all. And having a steady well-paying job seems to be a thing of the past.

Seems like every generation wants to improve their class. Many want the image of middle to upper class but can't afford it. They live on credit in an attempt to climb the social class ladder or sacrifice values to climb the ladder more quickly and those methods aren't working. As a society we need less emphasis on "class" labels or acquiring the status symbols of cars and luxury items.

Here's another interesting article regarding middle class from a $$ and values point of view. Not meant to be political, just contemplative.
Paul Abram's Middle Class Values do Differ from the Rich

If you read the book Class by Paul Fussell, (which has something to offend everyone), one of his opinions is that not much of a higher percentage of people go to college (in the 80s when the book was written) than in the immediate pre- and post-WWII era. Why? because he felt that the same percentage of people went to high level universities and that the increase was due to community colleges and vocational type post HS educational systems that were masquerading as "universities" or "institutes of higher learning", while really they weren't.

My doctorate is from an Ivy League University, and I can think of at least two people right around my age who graduated at the top of their class who now practice a trade (one is a plumber). And, I work in a Community College system part of the time, so I have nothing against it. But there are a couple rigorous programs here (the one I teach in is), and then there are a number of real dogs, in which you are probably learning what you should have in High School, had you gone to a decent one.

Although Fussell was an elitist snob (self-professed) I do think there is something to his thesis. The college education had become worth less, because relatively the education received in many instances has been seriously diluted compared to what it once was.

The latest degree that I got was through a college that I considered a vocational or technical program, and I chose it on this basis rather than a more well rounded but less focused university setting. But when I referred to the process as vocational or technical, I would get winces from some of the administrators. The instructors pretty much felt they were teaching technical stuff, but the administrators I felt, were a little self-important and insecure about the place being a "real college".

I don't think everyone should go to college. I think some people are not smart enough to go to college. Most people are average: that's what average means. And that means there are people who are below average. But there are different levels of "smart". I work with multi-doctorate, post-doctorate people who are not particularly intelligent about a lot of things at all, and I know people can't pass a written exam on anything that have a completely different subset of skills.

But something happened in this country when it was decided that everybody should get a college education and when it became so important that every child was "special" and "above average" and that everybody "deserved" everything that everyone else has. But this is a fallacy, and it's some kind of intellectual socialism, I would like to call it. The end result is that advanced degree is worth less, because the process has been diluted and it has become inclusive to individuals who will not make more of a contribution Just Because they are "more educated."

I am probably elitist and a snob too, but on the other hand, if I were 18 again I would seriously consider doing something technical or educational rather than spending several hundred thousand dollars on advanced education. All honest work is valuable.

Palimpset your comment bears repeating: All honest work is valuable. Too often people are made to feel less because they haven't achieved a certain degree or class of greatness so they pursue education in a field that's not a good fit. We need a blend of people to make this country work.

I have a son (and DIL) with an advanced degree from an ivy league school (currently drumming up business for his start-up in the Philippines and Singapore). I have a daughter (and SIL) who graduated from a top tier law school working for a highly ranked firm in NYC. Our youngest son has a degree in diversified agriculture and returned to work at our family farm. All are good in their respective chosen fields. I don't consider any less valuable than the other. I'll add that none of them have student loans because they all worked and saved while growing up and attending college. They got no student aid but we were able to help them. We sacrificed a lot when they were little to get to that point.

Due to their careers, locations and connections we have been able to meet people from all levels of backgrounds: Wall Street execs, Supreme Court Justices, administrators at international schools, etc. When we initially meet and indicate our primary occupation is farming, there's a micro-expression (facial expression) that immediately reveals a surprised reaction. We're not fancy, but we do clean up. In addition to farming we're also involved in numerous other business interests such as banking and start-up companies (involving patents). When the discussion goes that direction, their reactions change. But we take pride in our farming.

So, while Palimpset said she is "probably elitist and a snob", I will say that I am probably defensive toward those who are involved in occupations involving lower class and manual labor workers. They provide a huge contribution to society. Go a day or week without garbage pickup, plumbing, car repair, food to eat or snow removal and the value of a manual laborer becomes very apparent. Anyone familiar with today's agriculture environment, the technology involved and the costs of equipment, land, inputs, etc. knows that it takes curiosity to learn, determination to work hard and a high degree of risk tolerance to thrive. Having a regular career or job would be so much different.

"I think some people are not smart enough to go to college."

I've never equated having a college degree with being smart! I do think having a degree indicates that a graduate has an ability to finish something they started. It signals tenacity, discipline, and in some, hopefully most cases, an interest in and aptitude for a certain field of study. The last idea is the most important one. If some level of interest in a field and love for learning about does not undergird the college experience, why bother?

I think the whole human race should take seriously the notion, "Do what you *love* and the money will follow." Even if the money doesn't follow, if you feel happy every day when you get up to go to work, that's worth a lot.

Not everyone who has a college degree is smart. But that's not what I said. Not everyone is intelligent enough to go to college. I will stick by that statement. If everyone were, it would be even more meaningless.

Not everyone can be a decent athlete either, or a good singer or an artist. Just as not everyone has those abilities, not everyone has the intellectual ability to get a college degree.

Fair enough. Personally I think most people are "intelligent" enough, but many are not motivated enough or interested enough. That is fortunate, since diversity in interests and motivations makes for a more functional and fun planet. I agree with you and others that college is not for everyone, and do find it repugnant that a college degree is "sold" today as a salvific entity.

Kwsl, no worries. I totally got what you were saying about that girl! I was just amused by the French literature reference and took the opportunity to get on my soapbox. :)

A college degree is a toilet ticket toward better paying jobs. At least it used to be. I know lots of people with degrees who hate their jobs and don't know up from down.

We have good friends. Jack has a Doctorate in Physchology. He calls me for advice. 'Nuff said.

Wasn't middle class measured by material possessions not too long ago? How big the house was, neighborhood you lived in, how many cars and make/model, name brand clothes/shoes, vacations/trips, expensive golf clubs or tennis raquets, bla, bla, bla. I lived that era, and 'hung' with the women who had 'stuff', and although I thought of our family as middle class, next to them I sure wasn't. I was young and insecure and at that time in my life, that was importamt.

Today I don't give a rat's butt what i'm labeled, and could *now* afford better than what all those women had back then. Does it matter? Not on your life. And it may be an attitude or state of mind. I think status is still important to the younger generation, but with everyone living 'charge card lives', you can't tell the haves from the have nots.

I'm of the opinion that many people have book smarts while others have street smarts. I have a GS who can certainly attest to this fact~smart in school he wasn't, but protecting himself and being able to keep himself out of trouble w/o getting into fights he was darn good at. When asked to 'have a beer' at age 14, he told his friend, 'I ain't stupid'! When asked to 'have a hit', same message different words, 'are you nuts'?

At 21 he's what I would call a very intelligent young man because he can function in a world that's been taken over by addictions, yet doesn't have any of his own. He's a young Marine, and still 'finding' himself, and knows not everyone is a sheep.

Why was this thread resurrected yesterday? A post briefly appeared which linked to a page that appeared to be an article about higher education, and then it was gone. I clicked on the link ... I hope I haven't given myself malware for Christmas.

Jen, I didn't even look at the date. Shows how aware *i* am. ;o)