<p>oldinJersey, I think what is life changing is if your kid struggles in large classes and would not succeed at Rutgers. I worked with someone who flunked out of Rutgers and got his degree from Jersey City State. He did get a decent job right out of Jersey City State BTW. IMO, if the difference in $ is not too great, I would go to one of the CTCL schools. If the difference is huge, well then you need to evaluate with your purse strings and the needs of your child. It is easy for others to spend your money :)</p>
<p>OldinJersey:</p>
<p>Again, it depends on the student. Some students really need to be in smaller schools and some thrive at large universities. As a general rule, I would not advise sending a student to a third-tier LAC as opposed to a well-regarded state university, but it really depends on the individual kid.</p>
<p>We have a relative whose academics are great but who has health issues. For this reason, he is better off at a smaller, less prestigious site of his state's university system than the flagship campus. Fortunately, the smaller site is excellent in his intended major. We're hoping that his parents will go for fit over prestige. I believe the costs are the same.</p>
<p>Hubby and I went to BigStateU. We were/are sufficiently motivated but not particularly type A go-getters.
Our kids, though each different, are similarly tempermented. We did not relish being one of some large # crowd. We do not think our kids will thrive in such an environment.
So for us, we will go fairly high to assure the kiddies get a small to mid-sized college experience.They chose the schools for personal fit. Three kids, 20 applications with only 1 duplicate, and 4 publics in the mix.
The kiddies understand it is THEIR education so they have the unsubsidized stafford loan and the IOU to Mom and Dad for non-completion. We are lucky to have the ability to flex our income and not compromise our retirement.</p>
<p>"It's hard to answer. My S is more mature and self-reliant than he was a couple of years ago when he began the college application process. So if, two years ago, the COA had been higher, I might have decided to just accept it."</p>
<p>The data strongly suggest that the majority of full-freighters would pay significantly more than they do now (in other words, list price is too low, and by quite a bit.) But the question you raise is whether, two years later, they would have found "value" in doing so. Since the first condition of the algorithm is not determined, it's hard to proceed to the second.</p>
<p>I think the limit of what I might pay decreased yesterday each time I turned on CNBC. By evening I wanted to ask for the FASFA back.</p>
<p>^^ LOL. Waited a while to do the Fafsa, and had just taken a distribution from I UGMA I had set up for the kids a decade and a half ago. Ha Ha. Called after close of the exchange on Monday. Sez Mr. Mutual Fund Rep. "Since the exchange is closed for the day, we'll have to make your distribution tomorrow." That tomorrow was yesterday!!!</p>
<p>I was tracking the market and watched at the biggest single day drop since September of 2003. By the end of the day it deteriorated to the worst day since sometime in 2001.</p>
<p>A market timer I'm not!! Its only money. I cant use it to buy my happiness anyway, right?</p>
<p>Yep, in only buys happiness when the market goes up!</p>
<p>"I believe because today's kids are more exposed to the big world, much more so than we were, that this is already a part of their psyche."</p>
<p>You think? The data I have shows that public schools are more segregated today, both by race and by income distribution, than at any time in the past 25 years. Is it "media exposure" you are thinking of? (Do you really think my sense of the possible is expanded radically by my exposure to MTV? or Bill O'Reilly? :eek:)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you really think my sense of the possible is expanded radically by my exposure to MTV? or Bill O'Reilly?
[/quote]
I don't know. MTV is blocked at our house & we don't tune in to O'Reilly. Maybe I'll have to read his book to judge if he's capable of expanding anyone's horizons. (Or not.)</p>
<p>But how can you discount the other 300 media outlets fighting for entrance into our homes every day? Yes, the media exposure that my kids have experienced has greatly expanded their world view & largely due to that, they readily see themselves with an enormous choice of opportunities.</p>
<p>You fail to mention the social mobility that surrounds us. Never before have people moved in and out, up and down in socio-economic quintiles, so readily. Didn't somebody post on this thread that the top 1/2% are really the only safe ones? That's quite true.</p>
<p>Nope. I already cited the work of Betsy Leondar Wright (and others) which shows that social mobility has actually contracted quite a bit in the past two decades. (What is true is the falling of the middle class - middle, as in middle quintile - $40k-$67k).</p>
<p>OiJ: Okay, I need to walk back a little: I don't evaluate "lower tier" based on US News rankings. As it happens, I scanned Pope's list of schools last night and I don't think I'd quibble with many, if any, of them. </p>
<p>It's private colleges like St. Brutus' College for Wayward Boys, Miss Amelia's College for Dull Girls Who Want to Be Wayward Out From Under Parental Eye, and Peter Prepster's Co-Ed Academy for Those Needing A Diploma On The Wall that I object to. </p>
<p>I'll probably manage to offend someone with the following anecdote but D was taken aback to find out that her Safety, Skidmore, cost as much as her top choices, Smith & Wellesley. As with many things, price has a sloppy correlation with value.</p>
<p>For us, the in-state public option is University of California, a darned good option (and my own degree is UC Santa Barbara) and I'd say that Skidmore, in terms of what I perceive as the academic quality and other benefits, is right near the break-even point, whereas her top two choices were clearly superior in our view. But you gotta have a Safety though, contrary to the wisdom of CC, neither D nor I loved it and we were both relieved when she got a "Likely" letter from Wellesley.</p>
<p>Mini, just google social mobility & you'll find plenty of studies claiming that it has NOT contracted. Even the Brookings Institute (a lefty group) comes to the conclusion that opportunity is less dependant on class & family background now than ever.</p>
<p>Be that as it may (let's hold that for another forum - Wright's work is 2006, not 1999), what is true (for purposes of this discussion) is that the prestige colleges we are discussing are less economically diverse than they were 25 years ago. Which could mean that the benefits I gained from being toward the bottom of the heap might be greater today, or, alternatively (and more likely), I would have much less chance of getting in. </p>
<p>At any rate, my alma mater (and none of the prestige colleges) doesn't exist for students like me, but for their majority (or, in a few cases, near majority) populations. Students like me are accepted because we add diversity to the experiences of higher-income students, not the other around. I just happen to be a beneficiary. (a happy one!)</p>
<p>None of this would change if the list-price was significantly increased, and the vast majority of families would happily pay for it. From what I can tell from a quick read back through this forum, only Marite has answered the question, and she indicates that she would pay a higher list price, though how high we don't know.</p>
<p>So, let's ask this question another way, since folks don't wish to answer personally (fair enough): at what list-price level do you think the number of full-freight applicants to Ivies, Stanford, 5 or 6 LACs, etc. would actually start to fall.</p>
<p>I'll begin - I think at around $60k/year, or slightly higher.</p>
<p>Mini, I haven't answered the question about how high I would go because I am already paying higher than I ever thought I would.</p>
<p>Since I am spending over $45,000 a year for my oldest daughter, and I think that is too much for an undergraduate degree, I'm now in a bit of a situation with my next kid. </p>
<p>So I drive him crazy. I say no to one school because I absolutely don't think it is worth the money and I say yes to another with a similar price tag.</p>
<p>Plus, I have no idea what my future income will be, and I would like to sit on my butt and relax (almost what I am doing now :)).</p>
<p>I could say something, but I don't want to give any college the idea (on the small chance anybody actually reads this) that they can keep raising prices at double the inflation rate.</p>
<p>So here is my advice to the schools.</p>
<p>Stop raising your costs at twice the inflation rate. Your product is not worth it.</p>
<p>You're not fooling me with your bs marketing.</p>
<p>I don't think it would fall at all. I think the academic standards would drop instead. If someone will pay 40,000 for a purse, and 60,000 for a car, I'm sure they'd pay for Harvard no matter how high the price. It would just become less for the brightest of the rich kids and more for the richest of the rich kids.
I'm having a breakdown about $ now, look for the frantic post. no answers, just frazzled.</p>
<p>"I could say something, but I don't want to give any college the idea (on the small chance anybody actually reads this) that they can keep raising prices at double the infaltion rate."</p>
<p>It is lower than the inflation rate for their prime customers, and has been for a long time.</p>
<p>"So I drive him crazy. I say no to one school because I absolutely don't think it is worth the money and I say yes to another with a similar price tag."</p>
<p>So, for the schools I listed (assuming he got in and would like to go), since you are a full-freighter, how much?</p>
<p>"It would just become less for the brightest of the rich kids and more for the richest of the rich kids."</p>
<p>Absolutely the opposite would happen. As Princeton has proven. They would raise list-price for those who could afford it, and provide financial aid for those in the top 20% who no longer could afford it without aid. It would allow them to ATTRACT more of the less-rich kids, and keep them away from accepting the merit scholarships at the Emorys and Vanderbilts of the world. This isn't speculation. It is actually being done now, and Princeton is very happy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I could say something, but I don't want to give any college the idea (on the small chance anybody actually reads this) that they can keep raising prices at double the inflation rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't worry, it is "enrollment management" that is reading.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And looking ahead - the number of homeless retirees would go up too. :-)
[/quote]
You bet that would happen!</p>
<p>OK -
The demand for Ivies or near Ivies is HUGE
Many parents are willing to mortgage their future to send their kids to these schools.
Many students are willing to take on HUGE loans.<br>
Some can just flat out afford it (not many though).
For some, the more expensive, the better. It signals worth. </p>
<p>So, I'm guessing they could go to a 100K or more per year. How could they justify such a jump? Well, they could say that they will fund scholarships for more poor families with this money. I think the number of apps would stay the same.
And looking ahead - the number of homeless retirees would go up too. :-)</p>
<p>"It is lower than the inflation rate for their prime customers, and has been for a long time."</p>
<p>Mini, you know I don't buy that line of reasoning.</p>
<p>If the stock market takes a header, schools aren't going to be cutting prices. They didn't cut prices in 2002.</p>
<p>I agree with OldinJersey that as long as people are paying $40,000 for a purse....</p>
<p>The number must be more than I am paying now because it will be more over the next 4 years.</p>
<p>I would pay around the $60,000 you quoted. Not for the education. Not for 1 minute.</p>
<p>For the status. </p>
<p>I would pay $60,000 for Harvard, Yale, Stanford, he**, I might end up paying that for Michigan. Not too many schools.</p>
<p>I would rather pay for Harvard than buy a purse.</p>
<p>But I think I am not jeopardizing my retirement. I hope not. </p>
<p>That status isn't worth jeopardizing my retirement. I wouldn't sell my home, or mortgage my future, for my kid's school. It's a school.</p>
<p>I would tell him to seriously look at Berkeley, UCLA or other UCs.
They are a bargain.</p>
<p>"I would pay around the $60,000 you quoted. Not for the education. Not for 1 minute.</p>
<p>For the status."</p>
<p>Well, doesn't matter WHY you would purchase it - only that you would. I can't really answer that question for myself, as I am not in that fortunate position (not complaining!) </p>
<p>"That status isn't worth jeopardizing my retirement. I wouldn't sell my home, or mortgage my future, for my kid's school."</p>
<p>I expect most folks would respond in exactly the same way. And I think you DO buy my line of reasoning (as in spending the $60k) regardless of what you say, because the schools would be at $60k+ had the list prices paralleled increases in income/assets over the past 25 years. As you say, it doesn't jeopardize your retirement, house, or future, and the reason is that, over the longer run, you have (financially) done quite well, much, much better than the rate of inflation would suggest.</p>