College Costs: How High Would You Go?

Parents Forum
121

<p>So, we're back where we started. My post #3

[quote]
First, it's not about "the private school experience," at least for us. It's about fit in terms of academics, size, location, student body, weather, etc...
Second, it depends on each family's finances.
I've just finished reading about how Wall Streeters are spending their $2 -5 million bonuses this year. A minimum of $200,000 on "bling" seems to be the norm. That's a tad more than four years at the most expensive colleges currently cost. For the majority of American families, $200,000 without some sort of financial aid, whether based on need or merit, is too much. Families should not put their financial health at risk for the sake of an education at an expensive college.

[/quote]
</p>

122

<p>It's interesting reading all the posts on this subject. It seems that for every plus (except one) there is at least someone who claims the same benefit of a prestige u. can be obtained at some public u. somewhere. Small classes (honors, etc.), Nobel Prize winners, research opportunities, internships, top-flight professors, intellectual excitement, nice campuses, study abroad opportunities, etc. etc.</p>

<p>The one exception is being able to mix with half the student body that comes from the top 3% of the population. That is simply unobtainable anywhere but the prestige institutions, and is what, in the society at large (that knows nothing about small classes (honors, etc.), Nobel Prize winners, research opportunities, internships, top-flight professors, intellectual excitement, nice campuses, study abroad opportunities, etc. etc.) at bottom gives them their prestige.</p>

<p>(I don't see why that is a problem.)</p>

123

<p>As the future is quite unpredictable and uncertain, for those who could afford it, they may just want to give their child some extra edge, such as better chance of meeting students from top 3% of population, etc.</p>

124

<p>I may be off base but I think that many colleges have a pretty good sized segment of the school that's in the top 3%. Where's our math whizes? How many kids in college at one time in the US (all four years). How many are in the top 3%? How many are at the Ivy's AND are top 3%? Some have to be legacies, football stars etc.</p>

125

<p>Top 3% of what?</p>

126

<p>
[quote]
But I don't think we'd necessarily have gone private over public if the private options weren't first tier.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. I read a convincing article about four years back, when we were at the peak of our search frenzy, that non-top privates were in general not worth the dollar cost. I can't think of an example that wouldn't offend somebody, but I personally wouldn't spend $$$ to send D to a second-tier private just so that she could "go to a private college." That's not what "fit" is all about.</p>

<p>But I've also believed in the peer factor of college education...at least half of what you learn in college you learn outside the classroom. One of the things that first struck me at a prospect party for the school D wound up attending was how impressive the 15-20 current students attending the party were and how I'd be pleased if they were my D's peers: bright, articulate, focused, independent...it was great even to see how they disagreed with each other.</p>

127

<p>
[quote]
But, in my mind, expensive is not always better. It CAN be but it might not be. If we find a good option, why not make the money stretch to grad school?

[/quote]
Yup. That makes sense to me. There are three ways of approaching this: 1) Recognizing that expensive can be better while not finding the difference great enough to warrant the extra cost. 2) Not recognizing a difference in quality. 3) recognizing that expensive can be better & finding a way to afford it. </p>

<p>Now for colleges, the difference can include status, prestige, or any number of things beyond the pure "life of the mind" atmosphere we want to immerse our kids in. For me personally, most things fall into category number 1. College might be a category 3. I'm not ruling anything out yet.</p>

<p>
[quote]
they may just want to give their child some extra edge, such as better chance of meeting students from top 3% of population, etc.

[/quote]
I think there are much easier & cheaper ways to meet those top 3 percenters. Hampton rentals, perhaps? </p>

<p>I couldn't care less if my kids' colleges have a large number of top 3 percenters.</p>

128

<p>Weighing in on a vitally important issue here. I have a bag that is wonderful - it is the most durable I have ever owned -- lots of room for my stuff but not too big. It's made out of nylon. The label says "Old Navy". I don't remember what I paid for it -- but I went to the Old Navy web site and the most expensive bag they sell is $19.50.</p>

129

<p>TheDad and I also part ways here. I have been to both lower tier schools and a top 20 school. It didn't help me a bit being around kids with higher SAT scores than me. And it got really old, no matter what school I was at, to listen to some kid who liked to hear himself rattle on. In undergrad, general physics is general physics. You have to learn the set amount of material. At the lower tier if you didn't keep up you flunked. No one slowed down for you if you didn't get it. I guarantee there are just as many jerks at private school as public school, just as many smart and helpful kids too. Kids will find their peers. If you are talking top 3% financially then I couldn't care less about it.</p>

130

<p>sax: good points. In some of the best high schools students are surround by kids of different levels but top kids are with other top kids (the 3%)in their AP classes and those are often kids they hang with. In addition,I think top kids benefit from the diversity. In fact one might think that to learn to socialize and to appreciate people for who they are and to find things in common and be friends with those "not in the top 3%" is a good thing. If a kid is smart and as good as we think why would having students of diverse academic levels who aren't even in the same classes at a big university threaten the education of the smart kid?</p>

131

<p>"I may be off base but I think that many colleges have a pretty good sized segment of the school that's in the top 3%. Where's our math whizes? How many kids in college at one time in the US (all four years). How many are in the top 3%? How many are at the Ivy's AND are top 3%? Some have to be legacies, football stars etc."</p>

<p>All things being equal (they never are), the colleges with list prices of $45k/year assume, with an average family size, etc., income of about $170k or higher to be able to pay full-freight. Of course, they know that income is not the only story - asset equivalences the same. This puts such a family in the top 3% of the U.S. population in terms of income. Roughly half of the student body at each of the Ivies and prestige LACs (give or take for each) has a minimum of income/assets at that top 3% level, with the median of these being much higher than that.</p>

<p>It is much more difficult to get an income spread at the publics, as it takes much less in the way of income/assets to afford $17-$24k than $45k. However, we do know about much higher percentages of Pell grantees, and lower-income students receiving state grants. </p>

<p>"I couldn't care less if my kids' colleges have a large number of top 3 percenters."</p>

<p>You might if you experienced the value, or you might not, or, in good socialist mode, you might decide it is a negative, anti-democratic value. But you'd be surprised what a different it makes, and it is the only difference that one can be sure cannot be realized in a "less prestigious" environment.</p>

132

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>I think you are using '"top 3%" differently from oldolddad and oldinjersey. They're talking about "top 3%" in terms of academics, not in terms of income. Yeak, I know about the correlation between parental income and SAT scores, but math whizzes are not confined to the high income bracket.</p>

133

<p>
[quote]
But you'd be surprised what a different it makes, and it is the only difference that one can be sure cannot be realized in a "less prestigious" environment.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>mini,</p>

<p>Please elaborate. I believe it makes a difference, but I cannot articulate it. How do you see it making a difference?</p>

134

<p>I see LOTS of parents talking about "saving the money for grad school," but a good graduate program is fully funded. An able learner doesn't need to save money for grad school--the learner just needs to get into a good grad school in the first place. This is absolutely true for science and technology disciplines, and some parents here have reported that humanities majors in the right grad schools also don't have to pay out of pocket for their studies. Grad students get paid. </p>

<p>Now, if you are talking about professional school (e.g., law school or medical school), that is different. Professional schools are not called graduate schools, even though they grant postgraduate degrees. For law schools and medical schools, you get the same debatable trade-off between MUCH less expensive state schools (my law school was quite affordable) and prestigious privately operated schools. I only know the state school world, at all levels from kindergarten through law school, but there again if I had a child with that interest, I would encourage the child to APPLY to a broad array of professional schools, and to see what's on offer and what specifics my child can find out about the pros and cons of each professional school. A really smart thing to do would be to talk to LOTS of actual practitioners of the sought-after profession, years in advance if possible.</p>

135

<p>ok, now it's time to add in my secret theory of high priced colleges, outside of the Ivys, based only on one lac, visited back in the 90's. It seemed as if there were smart, regular looking students and a different set of beautiful looking, more average students...
The OldInJersey 3% of the wealthy theory is that rich older men marry younger, less bright trophy wives and produce pretty and not-as-bright kids.</p>

<p>Plus, back to the academic 3%-such a limited way to look at quality.</p>

136

<p>I was talking to TheMom about this thread. In her family, resources were divided. The girls could go to community college; they boys could go anywhere they wanted. Nor would her parents, when she was in high school, sign off on a schedule that included a fourth year of Math and Chinese. "You don't need that. Besides, we don't even recognize them." </p>

<p>Ugh. Wheels may turn slowly but at least they sometimes turn. But I think it explains why TheMom is as no-holds-barred for our D's education as I am.</p>

137

<p>OldinJersey:</p>

<p>Any college will have its own top 3%. That's a given. But colleges (and that includes the undergraduate programs of research universities, both public and private) that have excellent reputation for some particular fields will attract the top 3% of the school population interested in that particular field. So the International Olympiad gold medalists and Intel winners are more likely to be found in some top schools than at Podunk U. Podunk U may be all-around good; but it does not have that stellar department that will attract those gold medalists and grand prize winners. And it is a very different experience being in classes with those gold medalists even if you were the Math or science whiz of your so-so high school.
There are many kinds of diversity. Top colleges strive for academic excellence which entails academic homogeneity; they compensate for that by stressing various forms of diversity. Income diversity is one, but there is also geographic diversity, diversity of ECs, etc...
The majority of students by definition are neither in the top 3 or 10% or in the bottom 3 or 10%. Their academic needs can be addressed by the majority of institutions of higher learning, though issues of fit will drastically reduce the number of colleges that will be of interest.</p>

138

<p>"I think you are using '"top 3%" differently from oldolddad and oldinjersey. They're talking about "top 3%" in terms of academics, not in terms of income. Yeak, I know about the correlation between parental income and SAT scores, but math whizzes are not confined to the high income bracket."</p>

<p>This forum is about "college costs". The 3% represents those willing to pay for it without need-basd aid. 3% in academics has nothing to do with this forum, which is "College Costs: How High Would You Go".</p>

<p>As for the math whizzes - by definition, there aren't that many of 'em. Same for quarterbacks. In my day, there clearly were well more (in quantity) math whizzes at City College of New York than at Yale (I actually don't think it was even close). And you can find small numbers of math whizzes at all kinds of places (as you well know). What you CAN'T find at all kinds of places are student bodies where half the families make more than $170k/yr, and that the median among them is much higher than that. This, at bottom, is what gives them their prestige. </p>

<p>"Please elaborate. I believe it makes a difference, but I cannot articulate it. How do you see it making a difference?"</p>

<p>For those within the top half at my own alma mater, it confirmed folks in their comfortableness with their own class, and gave them social class peer groups with whom they could relate for the rest of their lives, and confirmed them in their own superiority. This is what newly arrived 3%ers aspire to, and prestige colleges deliver on it. And, as I've already noted, the data suggest that many top 3%ers would be ready and willing to pay substantially more for it than they do now. </p>

<p>For me (coming from a much poorer background), watching and learning from my very wealthy classmates, even when I didn't like them very much - or, more to the point, who made me feel uncomfortable - radically expanded my sense of the possible, of potentialities which went far beyond my lower middle class existence, and gave me models that propelled me forward in new ways. I didn't receive ANY of this in the classroom (other than noting, in my freshman here, how even my less intelligent classmates wrote with great facility), but simply from being around them. And for this part of my education, I am very, very grateful.</p>

139

<p>Mini, do you have lifelong friends from your alma mater?</p>

140

<p>Very few. And I regret that, but only a little. (Remember, my closest friend, one of my roommates, was an alcoholic even at college, and was murdered a block away from Harvard Yard three years later.) I went a radically different path.</p>

<p>Why do you ask?</p>