<p>?? That's insane..... unless the colleges see themselves as merely a service for the very wealthy. What about the other 95% whose incomes are essentially stagnant? Or is Williams saying that it promises financial aid for all of those families?</p>
<p>The problem, obviously, is that the vast majority of private colleges which follow along with the tuition setting trend do not guarantee to meet full need.</p>
<p>Seems very unfair to the vast majority of folks who see their wages stay the same or decrease over time, especially as other costs & expenses rise. There are so many of us who don't qualify for need-based aid & are stuck with full-freight. </p>
<p>I understand the logic but it sure is unfair to the vast majority!</p>
<p>That is a truly enlightening statement you just posted mini. Wow. I had never thought of it that way before. </p>
<p>But really, I'm sorry to say this, and you may all know what a LONG line of proud Kenyon alumni we have in our family, but in my humble opinion only someone with a lot of spare money should pay $42,000 a year to send a kid there. (And lest Kenyon feel slighted - I happen to think that about a lot of schools.) And those who have that "spare" money? The top 2% (not even 5%).</p>
<p>?? That's insane..... unless the colleges see themselves as merely a service for the very wealthy. What about the other 95% whose incomes are essentially stagnant? Or is Williams saying that it promises financial aid for all of those families?"</p>
<p>Question number #1 - well, you read the quote, and can make of it what you will. But at virtually every prestige private college, full-paying customers are the number one priority (and "diversity" was created for their benefit).</p>
<p>As to question #2, they are a "100%-of-need" school, and as long as there aren't too many with a lot of need who are "most qualified", it is isn't a problem, is it?</p>
<p>"I understand the logic but it sure is unfair to the vast majority!"</p>
<p>I don't see it as unfair at all. These schools were not created for the "vast majority". (With the exception of Amherst, whose charter calls for the education of the "pious indigent". ;))</p>
<p>"That is a truly enlightening statement you just posted mini. Wow. I had never thought of it that way before."</p>
<p>And why is it unfair that the list price at least keep pace with the income (no less the assets) of the people who are expected to pay it. I think it is extremely fair (though I do think, given the marketplace, which he also references in the interview, the list price is far too low. Why should my measly alumni contribution subsidize the education of multi-millionaires? though, come to think of it, I rather like that idea. ;)).</p>
<p>^ I never said I thought it was unfair. I just said I thought it was interesting.</p>
<p>OK, your point taken--I guess Williams & many schools that are similar who don't find "Financial Need" in folks like me who earn too much or have too many assets to get any need-based aid are not interested in our kids unless we're willing to dig ourselves into a deep hole to fund their ever-increasing tuitions & expenses. Just more schools to cross off our list of possibilties.</p>
<p>Now, don't get testy. They can raise the list-price, and offer you a little bit of need-based aid to offset it, and you might think you're getting a good deal, instead of having to take out a loan. Works for Princeton, and I think you'll see lots of other schools going in that direction.</p>
<p>An expensive college DOES have to offer something that is perceived to be good value to deign to get even a fraction of list price out of most of us Americans who work for a living. I happen to be of the opinion that Princeton succeeds in offering good, affordable value to families from a broad income range, but not everyone likes what Princeton has on offer. Moreover, not everyone who likes Princeton can get in. But there do seem to be several very good colleges that set list price and "need based" discounts that way. The recent thread about cost of attendance at state universities reminds me that list price can be a lot less at a lot of rather decent colleges. Each family has to consider what actual out-of-pocket cost is at the colleges where Junior applies and is admitted.</p>
<p>Yeah, Mini, in theory, it's all well & good, but I & many I know end up paying the full list price because we don't officially have any "need," tho we can ill afford these ever-increasing "list" prices.</p>
<p>The schools that our kids are able to get into that we can afford gets smaller & smaller, which I feel is sad & unfair. That a lot of other schools are following suit shrinks the pool even more. The only $$$ we qualify for is merit aid & then only if our kid has high enough STATS to interest the school enough. We are glad one of our kids did attract some merit $, but can't count on that.</p>
<p>I know, how about "everyday low prices" for everyone? Of course, that would never happen, but that would help folks like me who don't qualify for need-based FAid the most.</p>
<p>By the way, I'm not "testy," just sad & frustrated.</p>
<p>Few people have so much money they are indifferent as to how they spend it. Given the continuing strong demand, pricing has not yet turned away sufficient consumers to create diminishing returns, but it has begun changing behavior on the margins. An increasing number of the professionals I work with now encourage their offspring to attend publics. This is a changed behavior from several years ago. I believe that change relates to the increasing cost of private schools juxtaposed against the increasing acceptance of the publics as more families choose that option. For these decision-makers, money is not a constraint; however, it is still an issue. While many on CC believe the value of the privates is fairly obvious, that cost/benefit equation is plenty blurry to others.</p>
<p>As prestige privates (or at least a goodly number of them), as price has risen, so has demand, reflected in increasing applications by folks who are prepared to pay full-freight. This is counter to general free-market theory, but it is exactly what one would expect from Veblen's 'theory of the leisure class'. There may come a point where the demand curve would change, but obviously these schools are nowhere close to it. </p>
<p>But to deal with changing behaviors on the margins (and it really is just the margins, because there is an overabundance of folks ready to shell out whatever they decide to charge), I think Princeton came up with an optimal solution - offering merit aid disguised as need-based aid to those who can almost pay full-freight, and then raising the list price to offset it. I think you will see lots of other colleges move in that direction (Williams already is.)</p>
<p>mini:
"reflected in increasing applications by folks who are prepared to pay full-freight"</p>
<p>But is this substantiated? Are kids applying to "prestige" schools only to find out in April that they can't afford to go? I don't know what the yield figures show (when you control for demographics).</p>
<p>At our kids' HS & among our friends, there are many kiddos who are turning down more prestigous "dream" schools because the bottom line is they are just too dang expensive! $10,000+ difference in the out-of-pocket costs x 4 years is just too much for many of them & this is after merit and/or need aid is considered. Maybe I know all the folks on the margins, but I honestly don't think so. I guess there are just so many ready, willing & able to pay full-freight that the schools honestly don't give a rip about those "others" of us who may just be reflected in "lower yield."</p>
<p>Soozievt-
When estimating and comparing cost, I think transportation costs should be part of the calculation. They can add 10% or more to the costs. My younger s. is considering schools across the continent. If we were to look at flying him (and probably us as well when he first moves in) at the beginning and end of school each year, as well as for the major (non airfare discounted) holidays or breaks, that adds up. And we are fortunate to live in a big city with a major airport, and he is looking at schools that have a big airport a little farther away (ie cheaper fares) and a smaller airport closer to the schools. Of course, if he were to fly into the bigger airport, we then add on transportation costs from the airport to the college. So the costs are probably similar in the longrun. </p>
<p>Should he decided to take a car, thats another cost (parking). It might be offset by one or 2 less flights , but then again, add back in the gas $$ and auto maintenance. Ouch!</p>
<p>And speaking of expensive colleges, I thought Landmark College always held the "honor" of being the most expensive in the country. I'll have to go ck their website. I'll report back on that one.</p>
<p>ok, here are Landmark's fees- Even if you look only at tuition, room and board, you are looking at $45,700. But, read on. It may be tax deductible (as Landmark specialized in addressing the needs of college kids with LD)</p>
<p>Fees for the 2006-2007 Academic Year (30 weeks)
Tuition: $38,500
Room Fee: $3,600
Board Fee: $3,600
Damage Deposit: $300
Health Insurance: $500 (International students: $650)<br>
Technology Fee: $60<br>
Total: $46,560</p>
<p>Landmark College’s tuition and fees may qualify as a medical tax deduction. IRS publications 907 and 502 offer information about medical and dental expenses. In addition to tuition and fees, other costs such as books, notebook computers and other educational related expenses may be tax deductible. We recommend that you consult your tax advisor about these options.</p>
<p>"But is this substantiated? Are kids applying to "prestige" schools only to find out in April that they can't afford to go? I don't know what the yield figures show (when you control for demographics)."</p>
<p>Fair enough, except when you consider that the largest increases in ED applications have come to schools with the lowest acceptance rates (and highest rates of growth in applications.) </p>
<p>Anyhow, the Pres. of Williams is a higher ed. economist (that's how he got the job!) If he says it works to raise tuition rates as high as the rate of income growth in the top 5%, I think it makes sense to believe him. (especially as asset growth in the top 5% is MUCH faster than income growth, so that the subsidy for the wealthy is actually increasing even at this rate of full-freight rate hikes.)</p>
<p>Glad my $10 a year stretches so far. ;)</p>
<p>"I guess there are just so many ready, willing & able to pay full-freight that the schools honestly don't give a rip about those "others" of us who may just be reflected in "lower yield."</p>
<p>They DO give a rip - that's much of what Princeton's new aid policy (being copied by others) is all about.</p>
<p>Not when we're still not qualifying for any of this wonderful need-based aid that is supposedly readily available & none of our friends or family are either. We're the "gap" group that isn't important OR is supposed to pay, pay, pay. Not that I'm complaining that we don't live on an income of $50,000 or below, but any way we look at it, $180-200K for 4 years of college is a heckofalotta $$$$ for us & our families & friends.</p>
<p>Hawaii has a state university, doesn't it?</p>
<p>There are a lot more 'rich' and 'wealthy' people today than there were a decade or 2 ago. The number of wealthy families is increasing and not stagnant. If those numbers are increasing, why shouldn't there be more wealthy admits.</p>
<p>Maybe the problem is that the number of attractive schools is not increasing fast enough to meet the demand. Or perhaps the families/students are not exploring the other possibilities.</p>
<p>Yes, HI does have a state U with two branches & several community colleges. It is largely a commuter campus. It's our understanding that getting an engineering degree is very challenging because it's tough to get the courses you want & need to graduate; we've heard this from multiple sourcles. Tuition for residents & WUE members is quite inexpensive.</p>