<p>I saw a thread about Bowdoin and Tufts suspending their needs-blind admissions polices, and just out of curiosity, I checked the cost of attending either of these schools for a year: around $50,000. </p>
<p>So I was wondering: what sort of calculation do parents make in sending their kids to go to schools such as these when, perhaps, a highly-rated flagship state university is available as an alternative? </p>
<p>Example: An in-state student from CA could go to Berkeley or UCLA for about half of the cost of Bowdoin or Tufts (just to choose these two -- obviously I could substitute other schools). Over a four year time frame, a student's family would pay an additional $100,000 (or more) to send a child to Bowdoin and Tufts. </p>
<p>I'm not at all disparaging the quality of Bowdoin and Tufts, and I am aware of all of their wonderful features. But, to be blunt, is it worth an additional $25,000 per year to send a student to schools such as these if a student has gained admission to schools such as Berkeley or UCLA?</p>
<p>westerndad, I think you and my DH are twins separated at birth. We’re deciding between UCLA and USC. No FA in sight and, frankly, none really needed. But is USC worth twice the cost? We’re in our “due diligence” phase now with site visits, but we need to at least abstractly be able to quantify the extra $100,000 for a degree from USC.</p>
<p>First, I’d look at the fact that Berkeley’s 4 year graduation rate is 60% and UCLA’s lower. So for man it’s not half price. Then I’d weigh in the budget crisis is CA. I look at class size and figure we’re just not comparing apples to apples. </p>
<p>To me if money is a big issue, good state schools are hard to beat. If it’s not a big issue, there’s a lot to love about the more intimate and resource filled private colleges at the undergrad level. And I’m willing to pay a lot, if I can afford it, to have my kids go to school with kids from all over the world vs. one state. Feel free to flame me, but the UC’s, at 38% Asian students, are not diverse in my eyes.</p>
<p>Some kids thrive in huge schools. Some thrive in smaller places. </p>
<p>Some kids go to a huge flagship and suffer through gatekeeper classes, TA’s with no English skills or interest in teaching, horrible housing, and the extra years needed to get the classes needed.</p>
<p>Some kids go to huge flagship schools and learn the system, thrive, get jobs in labs despite being undergrads, come out with money still in their college fund for med school or whatever.</p>
<p>The problem is deciding which kid you are at 17…</p>
<p>I’ve taught or attended the whole gamut, from small liberal arts colleges, Ivies and nearIvies, flagship state schools, and yes, two UC schools. Re SoCal girl, both UCLA and USC are fine schools. I have colleagues in both places and they tell me that the cultures of the two are different - there is more hand-holding at USC. A go-getter can go really far at both places. dragonmom sums it up well: It really depends on the kid. Depends, too, on the department or area of study. </p>
<p>Re hmom5, large public schools in metropolitan areas tend to have lower graduation rates because they are more socioeconomically diverse. Students are far more likely to be working outside jobs, or face challenging circumstances. UC schools have a lot of really extraordinary diversity that isn’t always immediately evident.</p>
<p>Unless someone has done a massive linear statistic study, I don’t think anyone really knows or that any school would want to have known. </p>
<p>Kinda like which school: A vs B vs C is better/ I should go to?
SoCalGal09 may have it the idea that maybe we should track twins through their lives, separating them at matriculation. </p>
<p>I have the opinion that cream rises to the top. Some schools will have a thicker layer and other schools a thinner layer, but cream none the less.</p>
Everyone has unique circumstances but for in-state, it can be difficult to pass up UCLA for a substantially more expensive full-cost (if applicable) USC - especially when some of the programs, including engineering, at UCLA are higher ranked. Both colleges provide a great highly-regarded education but $100K is a lot of money. </p>
<p>Regarding the idea that it’ll take longer to graduate at UCLA and hence cost more than a college with a higher 4 year graduation rate, there was another thread on this recently and there are many reasons why a 4 year grad rate can be lower with one factor being that it’s more affordable to spend the extra time (by switching majors, taking a difficult minor with a difficult major, etc.) at the lower cost school so some do. It’s not necessarily due to an inability to get classes and in fact, this hasn’t been an issue for my D and many other posters indicated the same but there could be some variance because of the particular major and how the student goes about scheduling classes. I’ve known some students pursuing some easier (than engineering) majors who go out of their way to take light loads so they can stretch it to 4 years.</p>
<p>Well, hmom5, you certainly deserve to be flamed:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>‘Asian’ does not mean ‘clone’, there is massive socioeconomic diversity; immigrant/ US born/ 1st generation/ long term family in US diversity; and diversity in language, religion and country of origin among Asians.</p>
<p>This is why America is not a full melting pot, or whatever the hell they call themselves. Most schools have WELL above 38% white, that’s not really diverse either.</p>
<p>And though I have little knowledge, it is kind of absurd to go to Tufts, etc. (ie. non Ivy+mit+stanford+duke+etc. privates) when you get cal berk instate. I know (kind of, my parents friends knew him) somone who has gone into a LOT of debt to go to schools like Drexel… While Drexel is a good school, it would be wild to say it is even close to being par with Harvard.</p>
<p>Consolation: I hadn’t considered that point about the varying quality of schools from state to state. Your comment makes lots of sense.</p>
<p>SoCalGal09: I’ll be interested in what you and my long lost twin end up deciding between USC and UCLA. What great choices you have!</p>
<p>hmom5: I’m going to REALLY be flamed for this one, but I think that diversity is vastly overrated. Nevertheless, if you took a walk across the UCLA campus, I think that you would be surprised by the diversity. In addition, there are far more kinds of diversity than racial and ethnic. I think that you would find plenty of political, economic, and social diversity at UCLA.</p>
<p>Westerndad, in the last 6 months I’ve visited all the UC’s other than Merced. The lack of diversity was stunning to me. I’m not ignorant and do understand the diversity among the Asian populations on these campuses. But when the vast majority are from 1 state, 38% are from one continent, African americans who are over 10% of our population are hard to find…it’s not the kind of diversity I would seek for m kids’ college experiences.</p>
<p>Would you pick Tufts over Cal because of diversity? I am still curious when Whites make up such a huge percent of the schools population, in every school, why is that not diversity.</p>
<p>For my kid, I care a lot more about whether or not his friends are majoring in partying than what race they are. </p>
<p>What else is relevant is what you plan to major in, and what you will use the degree for. If you are going to major in Philosophy, becuase you really like it, but don’t plan to go on to grad school or to enter academia in any way, I don’t recommend spending the extra money to go to an expensive private school. I believe the same thing if you want to teach elementary or high school. If you don’t know what you might want to do, I have a hard time thinking you should invest an extra 100K.</p>
<p>If you are going to struggle with the money, there should be a definite reason why that school is going to be better for you.</p>