<p>michuncle posted this on the FA thread</p>
<p>Poster Suze was attacked for talking about this on another thread. There is no doubt schools need to choose between the two types of aid in terms of how they spend their resources. It's a hard one, there are many middle class kids who would have no opportunity at $40K/yr schools without merit aid. I'll be curious to see what most think.</p>
<p>Agree that merit aid for top students can adversely affect the packages of needier students at some top schools. It would not affect the needier students at the need-blind schools, however.</p>
<p>Ivy school can be even more than $5-7,000 apart in financial aids offers. How can you choose a school asking you to take $5-7000 in loan over a similar school offering full financial aid? Why would you choose to take a loan of $20-30,000? It does not make sense that education in one place is that much better than other similar quality university. </p>
<p>I think parents and kids have to apply with an open eye. These number game are very difficult to understand. I am not sure about top quality but it works for even not so star students too.</p>
<p>But can't the schools use low loans to entice you into coming and then up them subsequent years? Do they give you a 4 year gurantee?</p>
<p>I still can not understand anyone in middle class choosing HYP over a state honors program when cost of attending is around $100,000. If one can afford it is one thing, but going to a higher presitge university on $160,000 loan something I will not advise my child. Evil Robot case confirms my belief, but I could be wrong and people are free to make thier decisions.</p>
<p>Evil Robot did not opt to go to a state school. He is at a top 20 private school.</p>
<p>zagat :</p>
<p>Loan are still supposed to be payable even it is 0% interest rate. No one can have a gurantee in life.</p>
<p>sokkermom :</p>
<p>Vandy is a fine school I was just illsurating going to a honors program is even not bad. I am saying for my comfort zone $160,000 is big amount. Other people may decide to operate on different criterion.</p>
<p>I know the evil robot story is lore here on CC. So much so that I went into the archives to see what it was all about. In his case, it was a choice of no loans or $40K in loans to attend Yale. Can we really know he made a decision that would be right for anyone but him?</p>
<p>I have a hard time generalizing here. It's great that he didn't stress his family or himself financially and is enjoying his choice. That's what choice is about.</p>
<p>But to say this is proof that others should make the same choice is a BIG stretch. Many would take on the $40K and give their first born for a Yale education. How can we possibly assess what evil did or did not give up? Does the perception that you went to a very top college pay off in the real world? It could depending in what you want to do. What's access to Yales's alumni contacts worth?</p>
<p>There is just no way to quantify this which is why you'll find people with the same set of variables making very different decisions.</p>
<p>Zagat:</p>
<p>I agree completely. Our family made the decision to accept the financial obligation to send our children to the colleges that would be a good fit for them, not the ones that were necessarily free or cheaper. While I agree that evil robot has become a legend on cc, that is a single family's choice. There are many of us who have taken the "more expensive route", and are just as happy with our decision, even though we get no financail aid at all. It is definitely an individual choice, not a generalization.</p>
<p>What is annoying, and go ahead and disagree, is that we are STILL judging people soooo much on what College they went to, not what they do with it. </p>
<p>Seriously, tell me what a "Yale Education" is...with so many qualified studends getting rejected from the "top" schools. that brain power, passion, drive, intellelect etc will go the the "next level" of schools. Those student will be togther, they will demand a good education.</p>
<p>So someone gets into a top school...they are NOT better than those that did not. They are different, but NOT better....</p>
<p>I see a future when these students in "lesser" schools will have their own connections, their own contacts, their own networking. </p>
<p>Because of the discussion of the application frenzy...so many great kids getting rejected, the lustor may wear off a bit. And students may make decisions based on many factors, not just "Name".</p>
<p>Actually citygirlsmon, they are not different, they are just the lottery winners.</p>
<p>The Evil Robot story is well known because so many of us contributed suggestions, both pro and con. But there are many many other families that make the same calculus and come to the same conclusion as ER did.
I believe that ER has other siblings to put through school. As well, he gave up Yale for a very well-regarded private university. But even if he had chosen an Honors program at a state university, I believe he would have made the right choice. ISaddling oneself with that much debt forcloses many opportunities during college and after graduation.
It has by no means been proven that access to alumni contacts provides a boost. It really depends on what one wants to do in life. It won't get you into grad school any more easily. It won't necessarily help you to be elected in Kansas if you were in Yale's Skull and Bones; it may even lead to reverse discrimination of the kind that overqualified people encounter or that leads Harvard students to mutter that they go to school "in the Boston area." As many have pointed out, there are many more graduates of state universities than there are of highly selective private universities.
Incidentally, we made the same calculus regarding private high school. We decided to stay with our public high school. In three years, we spent on the order of $2k on college classes rather than $60k for day private school.</p>
<p>Need-based aid policies are on the endangered speciies list. Ten years from now, when the echo boom glut has passed, it is likely that there will be less than a dozen colleges operating on a strictly need-based policy.</p>
<p>It's really quite simple. For what it costs you to give a full-ride need-based aid package to a low income student (who probably has lower SATs), you can give $10,000 each in merit aid to lure four wealthy kids with 1500+ SATs to your school. You get "better" students, your stats go through the roof, your school becomes more prestigious, and then you can attract the most prized catch of all -- full-fare customers. </p>
<p>What do you guys think all these "Honors" programs, even at state universities are all about? These are variable pricing plans designed to attract customers, exactly like the variable pricing plans used to fill airline seats. To be profitable, you need the right mix of heavily discounted seats (the need-based aid flyer) and full-fare seats (the business traveller). To attract wealthy full-fare customers, you need one thing: prestige. To get prestige, you need USNEWS ranking. To get USNEWS ranking, you need high median SATs. To get high median SATs, you buy them with merit-aid discounts.</p>
<p>All well and good, except that the inevitable loser is the kid who NEEDS financial aid. Why spend $30,000 to get a 1250 SAT when you can spend $10k to get an executive's kid with 1500 SATs?</p>
<p>Here are two superb essays on college pricing. The first by Michael McPherson, president of Macallister College, and Morty Shapiro, then Dean of USC and now President of Williams College.</p>
<p>The second is by Paul Neely, publisher of The Chattanooga Times and a trustee of Williams College.</p>
<p>These are eye-opening articles, going much further than the NYTimes piece in looking at the colleges as businesses attracting customers.</p>
<p>Interesteddad:</p>
<p>I agree with you about the shrinking need-based aid. What's needed is a more realistic assessment on the part of universities of what middle class parents of highly qualified students can afford.</p>
<p>Marite, yes there is no proof of what the intangibles are worth, which is again, why different people make different decisions based on their experience and perceptions. For me, having gone to schools with strong alumni networks, I would happily assume reasonable debt for my children to have access to one. Clearly the experience and outlook of others leads them to conclude differently.</p>
<p>"I agree with you about the shrinking need-based aid. What's needed is a more realistic assessment on the part of universities of what middle class parents of highly qualified students can afford.."</p>
<p>I think that for the most part they already HAVE made a very realistic assessment, based on how much a middle class family (remember: median household income is $49k) wants to purchase what can only be called a "luxury item". Some parents will opt to purchase it, and others might prefer real estate. But the market already shows that it is realistic; if anything, prices are still too low, as middle-class buyers are still lining up to make their purchase; in fact, far more than can be accommodated.</p>
<p>But to keep the panache behind the luxury price tag, they can only take in so many 1250s in need of full tuition. (1600s, too) ;)</p>
<p>These articles, interesteddad, were fascinating. Naively, I hadn't given much thought to price discounting for those that could afford to pay. Makes an enormous amount of sense from a business perspective, but puts a severe dent in the pedestal on which I'd propped some of these FA depts.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are currently programs disguised as "merit" scholarships that do take in to account the financial need of a student when they claim not to. </p>
<p>The kids that lose out are the high achieving middle class kids. The perception is that they do not need the "merit" scholarship as much as the financial need kid.</p>