<p>^There are a lot of ideas in that quote. If parents think an important goal of a college education is actually acquiring an education, then they may value the elite schools even if junior is just going to take over the family business and doesn’t need a credential to do so. They may want that opportunity and experience for junior even if it isn’t necessary to add to family wealth.</p>
<p>I think there are a lot of parents who value the opportunities for education an elite school offers and who don’t really care that much at all about the prestige aspect of it. And those parents could be from any socioeconomic status. imho</p>
<p>I also think lots of parents, regardless of socioeconomic status, are happy to send their kids wherever they want to go.</p>
<p>Oh good grief. I didn’t say EVERY wealthy family felt that way. Of course there are some that value education and value an elite school experience for other reasons. (BTW, that’s where a lot of the elite LACs come in – people who are educated and in the know re higher education typically have a worldview beyond Ivy or bust). Some wealthy families don’t much care and are fine with junior having 4 years of fun. And plenty of wealthy families give the big bucks of their choosing to a school that is personally meaningful – which may or may not be elite. You know, it cost just as much money to build the new dorm at Average U as it does Elite U. </p>
<p>Here’s a concept. Rich people are people like everyone else, so they do tall do the same thing. </p>
<p>One day I stopped to think about the phrase “5th generation Princeton grad…” that I read here on CC and I wondered at which stage/generation the family became wealthy and influential.</p>
<p>Who said they are “wealthy and influential”? I know a 4-generation Princeton family, and they’re just run of the middle upper middle class. They don’t have any more “influence” over anything compared to anyone else in their economic background; they just have ties to Princeton. That and $4 gets them a latte. </p>
<p>You guys are kind of weird about mixing up money and influence. Those are two different things. </p>
<p>Before 30+ years ago an UG eduction at HYP or Stanford did NOT cost a "lot " of $. Not for soliod middle class families. Not compared to what it costs today.
In those days, getting in was harder than paying for it. Now BOTH are much harder [ for all but wealthiest]
Heck, my hubby and I were able to pay his way through Stanford alone, with no help from his parents, with the help of student loans and both of us working PT .
These is no way a upper middle class student can do that these days.</p>
<p>Or for those with lower-incomes. A reason why many public magnet HS classmates who were admitted to HYPS ended up receiving far better FA deals to attend those elite colleges than other colleges…even with merit aid. </p>
<p>Need to put this out there as I still see people counseling low-income and lower-middle income families against the Ivy/elite colleges even though for those in this SES group who are admitted, they are often far better financial deals than other colleges…sometimes including the local public college. </p>
<p>Many college faculty members…including those who teach at Ivy/elite universities prefer to send their kids to respectable/elite LACs for undergrad. </p>
<p>Some wealthy family members whose social circles include such faculty members may also be inclined to do likewise or because they arrived at such conclusions independently through research and resources like CC. </p>
<p>In the early 70s, tuition alone at the schools in question was about 3500/ year, up from about 1800 four years earlier. But that was also the price for a decent Chevy or Ford sedan, so I think its fair to say that its always been rather pricey in real terms.</p>
<p>By the mid-sixties, and perhaps earlier, those college catalogues had financial aid sections that explained perfectly well that if you were admitted, they’d make it possible for you to come (at least at the HYP types). Its been that way ever since, and I think Princeton went to a “no-loan” policy a decade or so ago, meaning that for the lowest income students, the financial aid was all grants…otherwise known as “free”. </p>
<p>Tuition at the top tier privates (and even those in the tier below) costs far more than a decent Ford or Chevy sedan these days, so I don’t know what your point is. You can’t deny that while full-cost at a private was still pretty affordable for those in the middle/upper-middle class who did not qualify for fin aid a generation ago (and back in the '70’s, working your way though college was possible at any school), full-cost at a private is not affordable for much of the middle/upper-middle cass who do not qualify for fin aid (or get merit aid) these days (and working your way through a private with no fin aid is pretty much an absurd idea these days).</p>
<p>Umm, what? Some people just have talent/smarts.</p>
<p>BTW, the LACs (many not as selective as the Ivies) are often best at producing PhDs. Case Western also has a higher PhD production rate than most Ivies. NMTech has a high PhD production rate despite being a public that isn’t as selective as any elite private.</p>
<p>I doubt most of the HS classmates at my public magnet who were admitted to HYPSMCC prepared their entire lives for doing so. Some didn’t even know about the nature of such schools or the supposed preparatory path necessary to attain admission…they just did what came naturally to them and were admitted. </p>
<p>That and most were from low-income immigrant families so some had to hold down after-school/weekend jobs to contribute to the family finances. I tip my figurative hat off to them considering how difficult it is to balance out the workload at my HS with ECs, long-commutes, and working part-time. </p>
<p>Did I mention none of their families would have had the financial wherewithal to pay for the high-priced private college admission counselors I hear are common among higher SES areas. </p>
<p>I agree that the top tuition at the most expensive schools has become excessive,…but the idea that anyone could “work his way through” Harvard or Yale in the 60s or even early 70s is simply not accurate. It’s always been expensive. $3,300 in 1969 was a lot of money (That was the cost at Yale, including room and board. Tuition was 2150). The closest anyone was coming to working their way through, was ROTC scholarships. </p>
<p>So the point… is that, while things are indeed remarkably expensive today, they were far from “pretty affordable” 40-50 years ago. And to give some perspective to increases, Yale’s total cost of attendance rose from 3000 in 1967 to 5900 in 1976—a 97% increase over 9 years (although incomes were rising at that time too).</p>
<p>In constant dollars, the average COA at 4 year institutions rose from $9,554 to $23,066, an increase of 141%. For private, 4 year non-profit and for-profit institutions, the average COA rose from $15,306 to $33,716, an increase of 120%. In the decade between 2001-02 and 2011-12, the COA at private nonprofit institutions rose 28 percent, in constant dollars.</p>
<p>These numbers only describe the increases in full sticker prices. They do not account for the average net prices students pay after receiving financial aid. Some of the most expensive colleges now provide financial aid to half or more of their students. At Yale, the average need-based aid recipient in 2013-14 had a net COA of $15, 435 (according to Kiplinger’s figures). That is almost exactly equal to the average COA to attend a 4 year private institution in 1981-82 (using the DOE inflation-adjusted figure of $15,306 for that academic year.)</p>
<p>One figure I’d like to see is the average family income of students who do NOT receive aid at Yale or other elite schools, and how much it may have changed over time.</p>
<p>If you put up two 750s on the SAT, you’re in the bottom half of the class at Yale. Two 700’s puts you in the bottom quartile, approximately. Unmatched concentration is accurate. </p>
<p>For academic talent, I think its a darn good measure…especially when we’re talking about a sample size of hundreds of people. One kid with a 1350 isn’t necessarily less able than a kid with a 1550. But if I have five hundred of each, it’s safe to say that the group with the higher metric is, in some meaningful sense, more able than the lower scoring group. </p>
<p>In any case, the original article in the first post is not that remarkable. If you take a highly competitive process and select maybe 10,000 kids using it (is that about the annual size of the Ivy classes?), and another 10,000 or so from other elite schools, it’s logical for them to be overrepresented in any high achievement context. </p>