<p>it is one of those "problems" only a special few are lucky enough to have --it is so much money that the vast majority of the middle class either get some kind of need or merit aid or are simply priced out. Those making this decision may feel impoverished after paying the bill, but they are really too wealthy to be part of the middle class. No TRUE member of the middle class can pay this freight especially for more than one.</p>
<p>Given how hard it is for a lot of kids to graduate in 4 years from State U, (and especially true for the higher paying majors like engineering and accounting) what is the right comparison? And economist would say it is not just the tuition difference, (5X annual cost for state versus 4X annual cost for private) but also the lost earnings from that extra year. </p>
<p>So this is complex. </p>
<p>I do find it curious how some parents equate USNWR rankings with quality measurement and comparison. Curious.</p>
<p>UConn is a very good state university with a growing reputation. UConn's acceptance rate is half of what UMass is. Something around 38%. Conn decided about 15 years ago to make thier state university the envy of other states. Mass. seems as though it couldn't care less. I wholeheartedly agree, people in Mass. have little choice but to send their S or D elsewhere. The commitment and the funding has just not been there. Last I heard UMASS was paying millions to a former chancellor (Bulger) who refused to testify against his serial killer brother under oath. Because of the contract the state signed off on Bulger is now seeking his multi-millon dollar golden parachute. In many states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virgina, and now Conn. residents have state U's they would unhesitatingly send thier kids to. In Mass it seems to be a very unattractive option.</p>
<p>Absolutely right about the graduation rate. But, also check the retention rate of those freshman. In a lot of state schools they lose 25% of the freshman. In the top tier private LAC's most freshman comeback and twice as many kids graduate in four years as compared to low-rung state U's like UMass</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the tertiary level, private buys an introduction to a group of friends from all over the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many urban public colleges can also give one an introduction to a group of friends from all over the world, as such colleges attract a number of interesting, ambitious, and hardworking immigrant students, some of whom are older and have fascinating life experiences to share.</p>
<p>I tried State U for my higher education. That's the only place I applied, because I regarded list price probably too highly. (I wasn't aware of what discounts are available at many expensive schools.) I will encourage my son to apply to my alma mater. That may be very inexpensive for him, as now my alma mater is heavily into the "merit scholarship" business to keep from losing high-stat students to out-of-state private colleges. I will also encourage my son to apply to maybe a half-dozen reasonable out-of-state private colleges that are of interest to him. If he is admitted, we will take a look at the financial aid offer and find out what is feasible. It is quite likely that the cost difference will be minimal enough that the VALUE difference, which could be huge at some colleges, will weigh most heavily in the decision. But all that depends on where he is eventually admitted, and I have no idea about that today. </p>
<p>Apply widely, compare offers, and see what happens. That's my advice.</p>
<p>I agree with midmo that the use of the term ZooMass is derogatory and an insult to the students who go there, when used in the context here -- essentially to bash the school. It doesn't matter if the students who go there use it -- it becomes demeaning when outsiders use it. The difference is simply that the context has changed. It is one thing for an insider to comment on a situation to other insiders; it is quite another for outsiders to pick up on derogatory terms and use them to express disdain for the situation giving rise to the label. </p>
<p>It's also something of a put-down of parents who have no other realistic choice -- i.e., the implication is that they must be terrible parents for allowing their children to be educated in such an unacceptable environment. </p>
<p>Students attending UMass or any other public college are often there because they cannot afford any alternative. The private college options may be better, but as a parent who has seen both sides of the equation, I don't think it's +$100,000 better, which is a conservative number for the cost differential over 4 years. Someone with a spare $100,000 to throw around may disagree -- but for families who don't have it, then the better "value" is often the cheaper college. Those of us who qualify for need-based financial aid may have a different equation to work with -- but those who don't qualify for significant aid for whatever reason may find that there is no middle ground, although for many the combination of merit aid and a less-prestigious private university is exactly what provides that middle ground. </p>
<p>I would like to point out that some of those who are paying full fare may be using such terminology to rationalize your choices: you want to put $100K of "value" differential between the private and public, and one way of doing that is to trash the public. Harvard might not be worth 3 times as much as "University of" but it ought to be worth 3 times as much as "ZooMass" ... hence the argument is framed in those terms. Maybe it's easier to engage in that sort of verbal shorthand than to engage in an objective, point-by-point comparison in which you compare qualities and attach an economic value to each.</p>
<p>Calmom:
[quote]
It's also something of a put-down of parents who have no other realistic choice -- i.e., the implication is that they must be terrible parents for allowing their children to be educated in such an unacceptable environment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What nonsense you write. Now, I am the one offended by your attempts at mind-reading. Ms. Know-All, I invite you to check out this link. Many others with the term ZooMass in their title can be found just by googling.</p>
<p>ww.zoomasslinks.com/</p>
<p>These public vs private threads always seem to get ugly. Seems to be a bit of a class issue - although my son chose State U even though we can afford more. Let's just respect each others circumstances and choices. IMO - Private can be better than public but not always. It depends on the kid and the program and and many other factors.</p>
<p>Actually, your link goes to a page titled "CampusLive - UMass Amherst". </p>
<p>But I can see from your reply to me that you are very fond using personal put-downs to further your point.</p>
<p>Oh dear, what a confused thread, spawned by a confused article with a confused title. </p>
<p>Are we talking about the price of admission? ie, forcing the extra-curricular activities, doing whatever it takes to maintain a perfect A average, taking only AP classes, spending $$ on tutors and test prep, the stress, the lost childhood..... or are we talking about the $50k per year cost of attendence? I just want to know what I am complaining about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, your link goes to a page titled "CampusLive - UMass Amherst".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is precisely why I posted the link. Got it?</p>
<p>Now now people, play nice.</p>
<p>I think we can all agree that Mass has shortchanged its flagship state U financially and it's a shame. However the subject of the OP was if it was worth paying the extra for a private school.</p>
<p>My opinion - in terms of future earnings, no. In terms of the "college experience," it depends on the student. </p>
<p>My son wants small, and the small state schools don't tend to have honors programs. The kids he has chosen to hang around with happen to be the top students at our public hs. This leads me to believe he would be happiest and thrive at a selective school. Small + selective = private. On the other hand, my daughter likes big exciting campuses. She is also quite capable academically, a large state school with an honors program could be the right place for her.</p>
<p>It depends on the child.</p>
<p>ZooMass seems to be common usage in Massachusetts. I don't know if students or parents find it to be derogatory, but it is common.</p>
<p>Gracious! I didn't mean to incite a war of words, or class warfare. As I already pointed out to Marite in a PM, I oppose the term ZooMass because I know that many of the good students there find it demeaning, as well as troubling, because it gives the people holding the purse strings an excuse to starve the campus for funds. I realize the term is commonly used by both insiders and outsiders, and I don't think any hostility can necessarily be inferred from its use. I do think it is bad for the campus reputation, and makes life harder for those trying to use their degree to get a job or acceptance to graduate/professional school.</p>
<p>PS The school is not nearly as bad as many of you seem to think. If it were located in a state that did not have so many very fine private schools, it would not be judged so harshly, even given its pathetic funding situation.</p>
<p>toneranger;</p>
<p>There are many terrific public unis, that are much better, at least for in-state residents, than many many costly private colleges. Even UMASS-Amherst has some pockets of excellence and its membership in the Five Colleges Consortium make it a better choice than some expensive but second-rate colleges.
What I do not like in the article is the inference that public unis are a better deal than private universities. It invariably comes back to how much money one will earn after college. Much of it is a matter of choice. As I've said elsewhere, my S has had some student teachers who graduated from Princeton, Georgetown and similarly excellent and expensive colleges. I doubt that their lifetime earnings will equal that of lawyers or doctors who may have graduated from less expensive colleges. But they chose to go into a profession that is known for not paying well.</p>
<p>And I've replied to Midmo that I doubt very much that the bad rep of UMass-Amherst is what keeps the legislature from providing more adequate funding. UMass-Boston is in far worse shape. And it is on the doorstep of the legislature. But whatever the reason for this neglect, it is absolutely shameful.</p>
<p>I've always suspected that a large part of the reason the UMass system gets treated so badly is because few of the legislators attended public universities. (I have not done a careful analysis of this, and I might be way off.) Here in the midwest, many members of the state houses earned their law degrees at State U. Not surprisingly, they have a good deal of sympathy (empathy?) for their alma mater. </p>
<p>I'm not surprised UMass-Boston is in worse shape than the Amherst campus. Most state systems have decided--wisely, I think--to concentrate resources on flagship campuses. But that is a topic that leads to heated debate, and I don't want to start that!</p>
<p>The article in the original post for this thread was neither focused nor informative. There are very real differences between public and private schools, large and small schools, liberal arts and engineering-focused schools. When several of those factors come into play at once, it is a challenge to make decisions.</p>
<p>I have read that Massachusetts is the ONLY state in the United States in which a majority of college-bound high school students go off to privately operated colleges. This is perhaps because the privately operated colleges came on the scene much earlier in Massachusetts. Here in the Midwest, it is quite routine for people from all walks of life to expect their children to attend State U, a university that was usually founded before the state became a state.</p>
<p>Midmo, you're probably right. I think a lot of political figures attended BC; in fact, I once read that to succeed in politics in MA, it was better to have attended BC than Harvard.</p>