<p>This is an interesting thread. Somehow, when it comes to education, there are a number of parents who are willing to disregard the concept of value and look to fund their child's dreams - whatever the cost ( 40K, 60K, 80K per year - hey, the sky's the limit). In our mind, life is a series of trade-offs and education is no different. If our son chooses to go to a super expensive school - then we need to work together to make it happen. But it likely would involve him working harder during off times, modest loans, and no savings for grad school. If he chooses to go somewhere cheaper, then we can save $ for grad school. And he can go abroad. We always made it HIS choice - but with an understanding of the trade-offs. I suppose we could have just said - here's 200K - go WHEREVER you want and we'll pay grad school too and send you abroad and no you don't need to work. If we were rich, perhaps we could and would do this. Why not? But we don't believe in raiding our retirement fund unless it makes good sense. And no, we're not the types who drive fancy cars, live in a mansion, and summer in Nantucket.
On the topic of Public vs Private, I too believe that many of you (judging by the posts here) believe that Private is automatically better. I disagree. Again , I see many students totally disregard our good state options and attend big mid-level privates at more than double the cost. No wonder these schools are able to charge crazy fees - it's because parents are willing to pay the price for a private name. Is a place like BU or Syracuse SO much better than a good state school? What's wrong with looking at value? And no, not just from a future earnings standpoint. Is the education received at these places worth double or more the cost?</p>
<p>I agree with toneranger that expensive private schools are not automatically better than state schools. Many public universities have exactly what you need. Maybe your kid even "fits" there. </p>
<p>To the OP on the topic of how much the private school experience is worth? Maybe a lot. Maybe zilch. From my perspective, it is not worth raiding the retirement fund, not worth depriving younger siblings of the classes, travel, sports and music lessons that made the older kids what they are today, not worth saddling the college student with so much debt that he has to move back home and is limited in his job or grad school choices. (your opinions may vary! :) )</p>
<p>"the problem with that rationale is that kids at public universities often end up with experiences they simply wouldn't get at a private college. They are different experiences - but they can be rewarding and life-changing experiences nonetheless."</p>
<p>Sure, but sometimes one of the different experiences has vastly greater value for that kid. I think of my college boyfriend, who went to Oberlin, and hypothetically could have saved money at UMD. He would've been the quintessential lost-in-the-crowd shy kid. Maybe he would've gotten lucky and found the right professors, friends, etc. without trying very hard. But I think it would have taken him a lot longer than 4 years for him to graduate if he didn't have a great deal of one-on-one guidance.</p>
<p>Now, as for me? When I was applying to colleges, I thought that I would rather skip college than go to my state flagship (i.e. a sports-mad campus in the cornfields with the biggest Greek system in the world). Knowing what I know now, I think I would have been fine there. Probably not the happiest kid in the world, but fine.</p>
<p>Marsden - to be absolutely honest, why do you think people go to college? After you strip off everything, the bottom line is that many employers will not hire you if you don't have a college degree, or a graduate degree. And if you have a Harvard MBA, you could get an interview when 1000 other candidates couldn't. We don't go to college to become intellects, we go because without it we couldn't afford a middle class existence. </p>
<p>My older daughter wanted to be a ballerina. I told her that it is fine if she could afford to live on 15,000 a year because I have no intention of subsidizing her hobby. She is going to major in math and minor in dance instead. The truth is that most of us work to afford our hobbies. There are very few people that are doing what they love, most of us are doing what will provide best for our families.</p>
<p>I am not going to pay 50,000/yr for my kids to get the right experience, it's up to them to make the right experience for themselves where eve they go. If public schools could give my kids the best tools to be financially independent, then they would be going to public schools.</p>
<p>I know what I am saying here probably offend a lot of people's sensibility about higher education.</p>
<p>oldfart: While agreeing with the pragmatic part of your arguement, I must admit I know an awful lot of people who are unhappy because they did not have chance to pursue their dream. Often is because other people or parents said things like:"You can't make money at that." Perhaps it would be better to tell people to pursue their passion but with the caveat of reminding them at some point they will need to put food on the table and that financial support from parents is finite. Life is long and there it sems to me there is plenty of time to let people see if they can survive doing what they love. If it doesn't work they can then go be an accountant or whatever seems to pay. But at least they know they had the chance. Kids now will have to work until they are at least seventy. Maybe we should encourage them to try several things and maybe they will end up being happier than many of us are in their work.</p>
<p>I certainly want to encourage my own children to follow their dreams -- but there is a difference between parental encouragement and parental financing. If my daughter, also a dancer, had wanted to pursue a professional career - I would have been all for it -- but I would have encouraged her to apprentice with a a professional company. From the years I spent in the ballet world, I'm pretty sure that is the best path toward a professional ballet career -- and company apprentices get excellent training while being paid. Several of my daughter's classmates are now doing exactly that. </p>
<p>I would have no problem with my daughter majoring in dance in college, either -- but I wouldn't pay extra for it. Same rule as I mentioned above would apply: in-state public or a private college with enough financial aid to equalize the costs. </p>
<p>As to what my kids major in and whether it will land them employment: that one is entirely up to them. I'm not going to support my d. after she graduated from college (my son is already supporting himself). It's really up to my kids to decide whether they want to major in something that would be a foundation for a career, or something that simply excites their interest and passion. </p>
<p>I don't buy into the idea that a college degree is absolutely essential for employment. I think its very useful in terms of creating options for advancement and opening the door for various kinds of employment -- but an philosophy major is going to be able to support themselves in their adult life, even if the job has nothing to do with what they majored in. I don't quarrel with the idea that the engineering major probably will have a much better starting salary -- but I'm just talking about holding down a job and earning a living wage. Again, it's my kids' problem, not mine, as to whether they want to do something during their undergraduate years that will enhance employment prospects. Once they are out of school I really don't care whether they earn $25K a year or $100K a year, as long as they are happy with whatever route they choose.</p>
<p>There are different medians among the full-freighters at the prestige privates. When 50% of the student body is not receiving any financial aid, the lowest family income in that grouping (all other things, illnesses, #of kids, etc. being equal) is around $1700k give or take. The median of the full-payers will vary, but it will usually be in the $225-$300k range. What this means is that, for the median full-freighter, it is likely the cost could rise very signficantly before they would "need" financial assistance (as currently determined), and under such circumstances, those with incomes below the median, would receive such aid (it would be similar to what is happening at Princeton now, with the majority of those receiving need-based aid coming from families between $100k-$160k.) And as the income/assets of those currently paying full-freight are rising (and have risen) faster than the rate of college inflation, prestige colleges, for them, is increasingly a bargain. (and it shows up in the number of applicants)</p>
<p>If the law of supply and demand were to work, there must be a point high enough where the there would be equilibrium, and the number of applicants would fall. But I sense we are nowhere near that point right now. For prestige privates, of course. The publics are another story all together.</p>
<p>Both incomewise, and in sentiment, I'm with Calmom. But the question is obviously not meant for us - we can't get even close to affording full-freight without aid in any case. It simply isn't a matter of desire - it isn't even on the radar screen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Somehow, when it comes to education, there are a number of parents who are willing to disregard the concept of value and look to fund their child's dreams - whatever the cost ( 40K, 60K, 80K per year - hey, the sky's the limit).
[/quote]
it is possible these "other parents" are just defining value differently than you ... to me each family is making a value proposition decision based on their unique perspective and value system ... and this yields a huge spectrum of decisions each that seem appropriate to the individual family making its' decision.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I must admit I know an awful lot of people who are unhappy because they did not have chance to pursue their dream
[/quote]
Maybe, but maybe they would be unhappy if they had pursued their dreams and failed, and at the same time discarded the chance to have a career with decent income potential. During the time it takes for reality to set in and realize you are not going to make a great living in dance, other chances are gone. The grass is aways greener, etc....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe, but maybe they would be unhappy if they had pursued their dreams and failed, and at the same time discarded the chance to have a career with decent income potential. During the time it takes for reality to set in and realize you are not going to make a great living in dance, other chances are gone. The grass is aways greener, etc....
[/quote]
I disagree with this. For the long-shot dream occupations the 2 prime time to give it a shot are when you're young or when you've gone empty nest ... it's tough trying to be a dancer, musician, athlete, etc when you have heavy financial obligations. I'm 47 now and I have lots of peers who spent 1-5 years trying to follow their dream at 22 and now are in very similar professional spots than me. And among my peers very few regret having given the long-shot career a chance ... but I know many people who regret never having pursued their dream (and my guess is a bunch will try as empty nesters if is something like be a writer or youth coach).</p>
<p>Then maybe it depends upon how long you chase that dream? You probably still have most of your academic ability after a year or two, but if you are in your thirties and ten years out of school, it would be very difficult indeed. Still, I agree that teens need to make their own choices and we should equip them with as much information as possible, including the extent to which we will financially support their dreams.</p>
<p>You know, one other thought I have always had involves a reality check for those dream careers such as athlete, musician, actor, dancer, etc. They sound great when you are 18, but in reality most teens don't realize the price you pay if you work in those fields. Those folks don't march with the rest of society. Even for those who are successful, family and social life can be difficult because of schedules, travel requirements and practice/rehearsal demands, unless of course your colleages become your family and social circle.</p>
<p>lkf725: I hear you, but it seems like on one hand we are trying to raise children to be independent and free thinking adults and on the other we are sort of saying "but you better do what we parents think is best". As hard as many fields may be to "make it ", people do. If everyone took that approach we would have nobody in those fields and careers! I think people overlook the risks of other careers also. Just look at the contraction in many so called "sure things" duing the last 15 years. Large numbers of profressionals losing their jobs. Even medicine and law and other professions are not without risks. As long as youngsters understand the inherent risks I would say go for it. By the way the general consensus is that young people now shoud plans on having several carreers. 50 years is a long time. Things change. If we are sending our kids to college to learn how to thinkg and to be life long self learners they should be able to adapt and survive even if they fail at a dream or two.</p>
<p>I think we're on the same page oldolddad. Times have changed! Kids should try things and go for the dream, but with eyes wide open and with the willingness to adjust if necessary. Remember too, not everybody has a consuming dream. Many people, myself and my kids included, feel that they have a variety of talents and could be happy doing a variety of things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the long-shot dream occupations the 2 prime time to give it a shot are when you're young or when you've gone empty nest ... it's tough trying to be a dancer, musician, athlete, etc when you have heavy financial obligations. I'm 47 now and I have lots of peers who spent 1-5 years trying to follow their dream at 22 and now are in very similar professional spots than me. And among my peers very few regret having given the long-shot career a chance ... but I know many people who regret never having pursued their dream (and my guess is a bunch will try as empty nesters if is something like be a writer or youth coach).
[/quote]
Well said.</p>
<p>"it is possible these "other parents" are just defining value differently than you ... to me each family is making a value proposition decision based on their unique perspective and value system ... and this yields a huge spectrum of decisions each that seem appropriate to the individual family making its' decision."</p>
<p>I really hate the term value because it implies that some people's values are better or higher or more meaningful.</p>
<p>It also then implied that the more you pay, the better the value or the more you value something.</p>
<p>Sometimes you pay more because of vanity, ego, and insecurity.</p>
<p>dstark-- I don't think the word value was used in a judgemental way.</p>
<p>We've paid for our kids undergrad experiences-- their "dream schools" so to speak-- but may not be able to help with a down payment on a house, leave them an inheiritance, etc. That's ok for us.... those are our "values". I've got a friend who has sought out the cheapest possible college options for her kids-- worked fine for kid number one, seems to be a mis-fit in every possible way for kid number 2, and jury is out on number 3 who is still in HS. However, she's planning to give each kid "starter capital" when they get married-- for a house, to start a business, etc., and they've done some pretty far-reaching estate planning.</p>
<p>Hey, doesn't work for me but those are her values and they're fine for her. I don't think I paid more for my kids college because of vanity, ego or insecurity but thanks for the vote of confidence.</p>
<p>From Wikipedia:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Value can refer to:</p>
<pre><code>* Value (mathematics) -- the value of a variable in mathematics.
* Value (personal and cultural) -- the principles, standards, or quality which guides human actions
* Value (economics) -- the market worth or estimated worth of commodities, services, assets, or work.
* Value theory -- in ethics, aesthetics and other evaluative matters
* Value (marketing) --
* Value (computer science)
* Value (law)
* Value (semiotics)
* Value (colorimetry) -- a measure of white or black in color
</code></pre>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In this thread, the term "value" has been used in more than one sense.</p>
<p>lyrics to "what I did for love" dancing through my head. We had to take a serious look at dreaming and chances for DD1. As parents we had to learn what is the best path to making this dream a reality- what's the best prep for the student, how to help the student understand skill level in relation to others in the age group, what is most often the most successful pathway to the dream, and options if it is not what you want.
One thing we had to keep in mind is that in the arts the individual teacher+peer group skill level are the main priorities. Unless you find out who teaches people who get jobs, and what kind of jobs they get, it can be a waste of money.
Our personal take is ..easier to try to be a musician when 18 than to go get a BA in physics then try to get back into music at 25 if you miss it too much to stay away. In the same way a degree in English, history, medieval studies or French will translate into opportunities for work or with some extra classes get you entrance into a masters program in a new field, so will a BA in one of the arts.<br>
A BA in clarinet music performance didn't hurt Alan Greenspan when he changed career paths, and there are a ton of much younger professionals in great careers that began with an arts degree.</p>
<p>I agree with dstark though. SOME people associate quality with brand and price. It is that way for clothing, cars, appliances and vacation spots, and it is that way for colleges too. SOME apply to brand schools without knowing anything about them...just for the name. SOME feel that private = more expensive = better. Yeah, I think some consumer product selections are certainly made because of vanity, ego and insecurity. Marketers count on it.</p>
<p>Yeah, the word value means different things to different people.
My main thought is that it seems that some parents take cost out of the equation when it comes to comparing educational alternatives. We did not. We thought it was important to balance ALL factors when making this type of decision and we brought our son into it. So, yes the fact that one of the top thirty private schools on his list cost 4 times more than one of the other schools he liked (after scholarships) was a factor. I just can't see taking money completely out of the equation (unless of course - we were fortunate enough not to make any sacrifices to fund the education - a rare situation). So when parents say "well, my child really wanted to go to school in Boston" as a reason for paying double or triple the freight - I DO wonder. But it's true, I really DON"T know the full situation so I should reserve judgment.
And why is it assumed that the "dream" school is always an expensive private? I think, in some cases, this happens because students and parents start the process by viewing privates as more exclusive and prestigious. It's not always about the education.</p>