2 problems cancel each other out

Parent Cafe
1

<p>There's a thread about how much harder admissions is becoming at Ivy League and similarly selective schools.</p>

<p>There's also a thread about how students are taking on too much debt and how college costs are escalating, especially at the Ivy League and similarly selective schools.</p>

<p>These two problems cancel each other out. Those who don't get into Harvard, Caltech, Duke, etc. don't burden themselves or their families with 6-figure student loan debts and don't have to spend the rest of their lives paying it all off.</p>

<p>You'd think that if the educational system REALLY valued such overwhelmingly high academic performance, the Harvards of the world wouldn't be so prohibitively expensive and would assure admission to anyone with sufficiently strong credentials. Imagine Ball State University with the same admissions policies and same acceptance rate but with higher stats.</p>

2

<p>"You'd think that if the educational system REALLY valued such overwhelmingly high academic performance, the Harvards of the world wouldn't be so prohibitively expensive and would assure admission to anyone with sufficiently strong credentials."</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Harvard and the Ivies meet 100% of the documented financial need of all accepted students. </p></li>
<li><p>85% of the more than 20,000 students who apply to Harvard each year have the credentials to be able to graduate from Harvard if admitted. Clearly, however, Harvard can't accept those many students each year. Consequently, admissions is extremely difficult. This is exactly the same type of situation that exists at the other highly competitive colleges.</p></li>
</ol>

3

<p>
[quote]
These two problems cancel each other out. Those who don't get into Harvard, Caltech, Duke, etc. don't burden themselves or their families with 6-figure student loan debts and don't have to spend the rest of their lives paying it all off.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's inaccurate. Students with demonstrated need are more likely to get good financial aid from institutions such as Harvard, Caltech, Princeton, etc.. that are well endowed and committed to meeting the needs of admitted students than many less selective but also less well endowed colleges. For the record, there are many colleges that are somewhat easier to get into than HYPSMC and yet are as if not more expensive than these institutions. A couple of years ago, Sarah Lawrence was described in USN&WR as the most expensive.
For some students, it can actually be LESS expensive to attend HYPSMC than their own state university.</p>

<p>The Harvards of this world are going to continue being expensive because the direction is toward more science education and research which require expensive labs; and also because the Harvards of this world cannot "assure admission to anyone with sufficiently strong credentials" and still remain at the size that make them attractive to students, not to mention that they are up against spatial limitations. Harvard's expansion into Allston is largely due to the fact that there is no space left in Cambridge for either labs or student housing.</p>

4

<p>I think JHSU makes some valid points. First the number of applications to selective schools has been increasing rapidly. This raises the selectivity numbers for these schools and makes it seem that admission is less likely. College tuition has been rising rapidly and many families feel they cannot afford the expensive, private schools. As pointed out, for some families that is an incorrect assumption. These schools will meet their financial needs and cost no more than schools with lower costs of attendance. For many of us that is not true. I live in a middle class neighborhood but in a very expensive part of the country. Most of us in this area have incomes way above the national average and do not qualify for need based aid. We still struggle to get by and can't afford 30-40% of our income going to tuition.</p>

5

<p>I would wager that the most unaffordable colleges are not the most selective, but those which are one or two notches below. </p>

<p>Take an applicant with an average profile. That applicant is unlikely to get admitted to HYPSMC; s/he is also unlikely to get merit aid at some of the more selective schools that are trying to compete with HYPSMC for top students (2 of S's chums are going to Duke on scholarships designed to attract top math students, for example). So the applicant with an average profile may end up applying to schools that are as, if not more, expensive as HYPSMC. That is a choice that many families do not wish to make, quite wisely so.</p>

<p>Case in point: Songman, whose son got admitted into Skidmore but decided to go UMass-Amherst (in-state). Skidmore is as expensive as HYPSMC but definitely not as selective.</p>

6

<p>For families like ours, with EFC's greater than $50,000, the most selective colleges are far more expensive because they do not offer merit aid.</p>

7

<p>I'm one of those parents that was willing to pay for HYPSMC, but not wishing to drain my savings for an out of state school that doesn't rank much higher than in-state private that offered many merit scholarships. Other than benefits of NMF, I had no knowledge of how many opportunities there were if one aimed for a "match" school . Ex., I did suggest S apply to Duke, because its close to home and he spent summer there, but had no idea they gave merit $ for math. Nor did I know about RPI. I discovered CC after S applied. There is more information on this board than anything I heard from GC or friends.
Fortunately, S is so content at his school, and doing so well, that I can justify the cost.</p>

8

<p>Before the issue of how colleges deal with the EFC, there is the question if your EFC is even reasonable to begin with.</p>

9

<p>originaloog makes a good point. It is the gross generalization contained in the original post that needs to be challenged.<br>
For good students who do not qualify for financial aid, the most selective colleges which do not offer merit aid may be too expensive. Although their academic profiles would make them competitive for the most selective colleges, they are better off applying to excellent but a tad less selective colleges that do offer merit aid.
Case in point: Evil Robot, who was admitted to Yale EA but went to Vanderbilt because the latter offered more aid. He is an example of the fact that the two issues do not cancel each other: he got into Yale; he just did not go to Yale.</p>

10

<p>Yes, and we know from other threads that even tho the elites meet 100% financial need, that they limit the number of students. The key words are "of students accepted." So, the OP's assumption that if the schools really cared about education they would be less expensive is something I agree with. They build into their budget a certain number of kids that they will have to carry financially at least partially, if not fully. But as it stands, it seems that the schools must have some paying full freight. So, many students who would have been accepted years ago, are being rejected now, and going elsewhere where they are getting money. In our case, it was less expensive to send D to elite than to the state u. At her school, 50% receive FA, and the others pay full freight.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
So, the OP's assumption that if the schools really cared about education they would be less expensive is something I agree with.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, many students who would have been accepted years ago, are being rejected now, and going elsewhere where they are getting money. In our case, it was less expensive to send D to elite than to the state u. At her school, 50% receive FA, and the others pay full freight.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't understand the connection between the two points.
Top schools do care about education: the proof is that they are providing financial aid to those deemed in need of it. Of course, schools need some of their students to pay full freight. To provide funding for all students would bankrupt them in a very short time. As well, I don't see why families that are able to fund their children's education in full should not be asked to do so. We are among such families. To me, the fact that we have been paying two full freights is not a sign that the schools my kids have been attending do not care for education. I applaud the fact that they are willing to fund the education of kids who are as qualified academically as mine but do not have the financial resources that we do. </p>

<p>HYPSM have become more difficult to get into because they are more meritocratic. Additionally, they have become more national (and international) institutions, drawing more academically qualified students from across the country (and the world), students who often need--and receive--, financial aid. If one were to compare the proportion of students on financial aid at the top schools in 1965 and 2005, one would have to conclude that for many, education at those schools has become more affordable.</p>

12

<p>< You'd think that if the educational system REALLY valued such overwhelmingly high academic performance, the Harvards of the world wouldn't be so prohibitively expensive and would assure admission to anyone with sufficiently strong credentials. Imagine Ball State University with the same admissions policies and same acceptance rate but with higher stats. ></p>

<p>Some of you objected to this statement. What I was referring to was the different set of rules that apply to the most selective colleges. At a normal college, anyone with sufficiently high credentials gets in, and things like extracurriculars, Nobel Prizes, essays, the mood of the admissions officer, etc. aren't that important. If the most selective colleges had the same rules, there would be colleges with the same incoming freshman stats (in terms of class rank, test scores, etc.) as an Ivy but with 70%+ acceptance rates. OK, OK, you can find these schools in the mountains of Florida. :)</p>

<p>Students applying for the most selective colleges thus face TWO obstacles that their lower achieving classmates do not - extra unpredictable admissions criteria AND higher college costs. It's true that there is financial aid available, but this is probably as much of a crapshoot as admissions, financial aid can come in the form of loans that must be paid back, and some people don't qualify for financial aid yet aren't rich enough to afford an ultra-expensive college with ease. It's also true that some of the most expensive colleges aren't that selective, but that's not the issue here.</p>

<p>Think about how easy the people you regard as "the lower achievers" have things:
1. Sufficiently high grades and test scores are all they need to get into their schools.
2. Not being a Nobel Prize winner, the next Mother Theresa, Varsity Sport Captain, class president, etc. doesn't work against them. Even having a BLANK extracurricular record doesn't work against them.
3. They don't have to worry about disciplinary infractions keeping them out of their favorite colleges. (Just look at all the posts from students asking if that detention or in-school suspension will keep them out.)
4. They don't have to worry as much about senioritis. Their workload is so much less that they don't burn out, and a C average won't get them rescinded.</p>

<p>Being a "lower achiever" isn't all fun and games. (I know. I was one in undergraduate school and graduate school.) But I'll bet that most of the students on these college admissions forums can cut back on the Honors/AP/Nobel Prize/Mother Theresa track to the hilt, sit back, relax, still graduate in the top 10% of the class, and still get into just about any college that a top achiever can. True, a 90th percentile student can't get into Harvard, but Harvard is a long shot for everyone, even the perfect student.</p>

13

<p>"It's true that there is financial aid available, but this is probably as much of a crapshoot as admissions, financial aid can come in the form of loans that must be paid back, and some people don't qualify for financial aid yet aren't rich enough to afford an ultra-expensive college with ease."</p>

<p>Actually, places like Harvard and Princeton give financial aid packages that include a fairly low proportion of loans. Seems that I remembered that at Harvard, the average loan package for a total of 4 years is about $9,000 or less. Compare that to the average amount of loans that most US students pay for their college education: about $20,000.</p>

<p>While their parents may not be able to pay the costs of a HPYS education "with ease," most parents can't pay college costs with ease even if the college is a second or third tier one or a relatively low cost in state public institution.</p>

<p>The very top students don't have to choose to go to colleges that are places like HPYS. If they are competitive for HYPS, they are able to garner excellent merit aid from lower ranked colleges, and that merit aid can include full tuition, laptops, paid travel abroad, paid luxury housing, etc. They have a larger range of choices than do students who aren't as strong.</p>

<p>As for the lower achieving students who can't get into the highly competitive colleges that guarantee to meet 100% of the financial demonstrated financial need of all students, they are much more likely IMO to run into major financial difficulties in paying for college if, at least, they want to go to a 4-year college.</p>

<p>When I taught at a third/second tier college, I saw many students who took extra years to get through college because they were having to do things like work up to 30 hours a week or sell their blood plus take out a staggering amount of loans to get through college. The college gave a relatively low amount of need-based financial aid.</p>

<p>They are less likely to be able to go to a college that guarantees to meet 100% of their demonstrated financial need. They are more likely to be accepted to colleges that meet need by huge loans or that gap their financial aid.</p>

<p>They may be just as likely to burn out by seniorities since they may be less academically inclined and therefore dislike academics more than do intellectually passionate students.</p>

<p>In fact, if they were not in the US, which seems to think that a college education is the only way to success, they may have been happily on a vocational track that would have led to them being able to support themselves comfortably while not having to be bothered with college level academics that don't interest them.</p>

<p>"But I'll bet that most of the students on these college admissions forums can cut back on the Honors/AP/Nobel Prize/Mother Theresa track to the hilt, sit back, relax, still graduate in the top 10% of the class"</p>

<p>It's important to realize that most of the students who get into places like HPYS are not doing the honors/AP/strong ECs to get into college, but because they genuinely like living life intensely and doing those kind of things. </p>

<p>These are the type of people who'll happily continue juggling intellectual activities and intense ECs for the rest of their lives -- just for fun. </p>

<p>Many of the students who are rejected from places like HPYS are students who lived h.s. life at full tilt only to try to get into HPYS, not because they had a strong interest in academics or ECs. Those are the students who come on CC and ask things like, "What ECs will get me into Harvard" and "Are 300 hours of community service enough to get into Ivies?"</p>

14

<p>What do you call a "normal college?" Even for Californians, UCLA and Berkeley have become reaches for students who are perhaps in the 90th percentile. UNC is a reach for OOS. And so on.
Forgive me, but even with higher stats, Ball State still would not be Harvard.</p>

<p>And some students study hard because they like to study. My S's last semester in high school was possibly the most stressful despite the fact that he'd been admitted EA to Harvard. He was taking a slew of very challenging classes whose exams/final projects all fell at more or less the same time and also coincided with APs. There was no way he was not going to do his best on any of these just because he'd already been admitted to college.</p>

15

<p>"Yes, and we know from other threads that even tho the elites meet 100% financial need, that they limit the number of students. The key words are "of students accepted." So, the OP's assumption that if the schools really cared about education they would be less expensive is something I agree with. They build into their budget a certain number of kids that they will have to carry financially at least partially, if not fully.</p>

<p>The places like HPYS are need blind in that they do not reject students because of financial need. </p>

<p>At the same time, for space reasons, a place like Harvard can't accept the 16,000 or so students who meet the academic qualifications for admissions.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
As for the lower achieving students who can't get into the highly competitive colleges that guarantee to meet 100% of the financial demonstrated financial need of all students, they are much more likely IMO to run into major financial difficulties in paying for college if, at least, they want to go to a 4-year college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>It may be useful to consider that US colleges accept two forms of payment: money and "stats" (SAT scores, class rank, etc.). The two forms of payment can, to a large degree, be traded off against each other. For example, a student with very high stats and no money can afford some of the highest ranked need-based aid colleges in the country. Or, a wealthy student can parlay very high stats into a low-cost education by shopping at merit aid schools. Or, conversely, there are many schools where the ability to write a big tuition check can offset somewhat lower stats in the admissions game.</p>

17

<p>NSM:</p>

<p>I did not see your post when I wrote mine. You said it more eloquently than I did.</p>