<p>A god-daughter of mine was admitted this year to XYZ-topLAC in NY. Total cost was 52,000. After grants, she will have a total of 24,000 to pay back in loans, for ALL four years, assuming she doesn’t flunk out. That’s less cost than a low-end automobile. She had the grades, though. Going to a state school would have cost her at least double.</p>
<p>
I think this is a sensible approach–but I would say that the parent should think very carefully about how exactly you are going to arrive at the amount of money you are willing to spend. I think just picking the cost of a local school is arbitrary. How would you decide how much you are willing to spend on a house, or a car? You wouldn’t just pick a number out of the air. You’d think about how much you have saved up, how much debt you’re willing to accept for this item, and what you value. You might buy a new BMW or a used Yugo, depending on these considerations. You should look at this decision the same way, and not simply arbitrarily say that some particular amount is what you’re willing to pay without really putting a sharp pencil to it.</p>
<p>I agree. I would happily pay $50K out of pocket every year for Harvard but I doubt I’d pay $10K for Arizona State, except in the case of some unusual / extenuating circumstance (such as a major only available there and nowhere else).</p>
<p>^^ agree, Hunt</p>
<p>“But who does this, anyway? Only people who are incredibly naive or are new to this country. In real life, everyone knows that you drive down the street of (insert nice neighborhood) and it’s not as though there aren’t plenty of successful people who went to whatever one’s state school is, or didn’t go to a fancy-schmancy college. I mean, really, duh.”</p>
<p>The reason I posted this is because after reading posts on CC for 3 years, angsty posts from students and parents alike about the importance of HYP and the like, it doesn’t seem like a “duh” here :)!</p>
<p>One does not have to get a C to learn how to work hard. Some kids might imagine that C is not part of their life and it is sufficient enough. It works though if it is a kid’s imagination at work, not the parent’s.
On amount of pay, I am happily paying huge tuition for Med. School, but in my case, forget about UG, Ivy, Harvard or whatever. But I did not have to mention that at all, it was understood. It starts at much earlier age than HS, it starts with priorities of every day life when kid just start absorbing what is going on around her. Very young kids will realize very quckly what are family priority, you do not need to talk about it, they can “read” your behavior very easily and act on it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is in total contrast to most of my extended family, even those who are comfortably upper-middle class…especially those who are from the scholarly/intellectual side of the family. </p>
<p>Most aunts/uncles and my own parents would hold the line on giving cousins and myself expensive high end toys/electronics…especially video games. They not only felt that was a gross waste of money…but in the case of video games…also a way to encourage bad study habits and even juvenile delinquency. The last was one big reason why almost none of my older cousins and I ever had console video games.* </p>
<p>Moreover, if any of us kids even thought about “demanding” such electronics/toys, we’d get treated to a long lecture about how unlike us “lucky to be born in the US kids”, they grew up having to contend with brutal Japanese invaders, warlord armies, Communists, and poverty unimaginable to most Americans in 1940’s-50’s Taiwan. </p>
<p>On the other hand, most of our family and other immigrant families I knew growing up in NYC…even low-income families would sacrifice everything** to ensure finances wouldn’t be the ruling factor when it came time to decide on where to go to college…especially for the best/brightest in our families. It was their way of showing they prioritized and valued education and the educational experience above materialistic comforts for their kids and themselves. </p>
<p>In short, most of us wouldn’t get the toys/electronics that our similarly socio-economically situated neighbors/classmates kids would have…but the mentality among most was that there will be money for a private college “come hell or high water”. </p>
<p>Only exception was some of us did get computers as gifts from grandparents/great-aunts/great-uncles. However, they did this with the express purpose of facilitating our educational experiences and picking up critical future job skills. </p>
<ul>
<li>Was personally grateful for this after seeing several undergrads at my and other undergrad campuses end up on academic probation, suspension, or even being kicked out because videogaming became too much of a distraction from academics. One of them happened to be a roommate.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>** All of the ones I knew found ways to do this without taking out exorbitant loans or going bankrupt…mostly by taking extra shifts and having other extended family members/neighbors who are already established help out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a general proposition, this just isn’t true, for a number of reasons. First, total COA for in-state students at public universities tends to be many thousands of dollars lower than total COA at a private school. That means anyone whose EFC is equal to or greater than in-state COA is probably going to find it cheaper to attend their in-state public, unless they qualify for a whopping merit award at a private school.</p>
<p>At our public flagship (the University of Minnesota), total COA for an in-state student is now about $24,000. At my D1’s private LAC, total COA is about $57,000, which is now pretty typical for top private schools. Like many top private schools, her LAC gives only need-based FA, and it meets 100% of need; but that means everyone pays their EFC. So any Minnesota resident whose EFC is greater than $24,000 is going to pay more to attend the private school than their public flagship. And even at a private school that gives merit aid, the merit award would need to be larger than $23,000 (the difference between private and public COA) in order for it to be cheaper to attend the private school. That’s not unheard of, but merit awards that big are pretty rare.</p>
<p>And that’s without considering any financial aid that may be offered by the public university. Every public university I’m aware of gives some financial aid, either need-based or merit, or often both. A few (like UVA and UNC Chapel Hill) say they meet 100% of need, in which case net COA after FA should be no higher for anyone at the public university than at a private one. (Of course, they may calculate need somewhat differently, and different schools offer different mixes of grants, loans, and work-study, but you can’t generalize and say the private school will always offer the better package). Others, like I believe Michigan and UC Berkeley, meet 100% of need for in-state students but not for OOS students. And that adds up to a ton of money. The University of Michigan awards over $100 million/year in need-based grants, and roughly another $80 million/year in merit scholarships. It can afford to do that in part because it’s got an almost $8 billion endowment, 7th largest in the country for any school, public or private. Most public universities aren’t as well endowed. For example, the University of Minnesota can’t afford to meet 100% of need, even for in-state students; on average it meets 79% of need, but even to get that far it’s giving out $112 million/year in need-based grants, and another $20 million/year in merit awards. Some recipients of those awards are going to find their net COA after the award as low, or lower, at the University of Minnesota than at a private school. Others will find the private school cheaper.</p>
<p>Finally, you can’t say as a general matter that “privates . . . have a lot of money.” A few, including the Ivies, do. Most don’t. It’s really just a few dozen private schools that both meet 100% of need and are need-blind in admission. Even some very highly regarded private schools don’t come close to meeting 100% of need. Carnegie Mellon, for example, which is ranked in the top 25 by US News, meets 100% of need for only 31% of its students, and on average meets 81% of need. That means most students with financial need get “gapped” by CMU. Since its COA is much higher than the University of Minnesota’s, a lot of Minnesota residents with financial need will find it cheaper to attend the University of Minnesota than to attend CMU, even if Minnesota isn’t meeting 100% of their need, either. #31 Brandeis comes closer to meeting 100% of need—on average it meets 92% of need, but it meets full need for only 27% of its students with need. But Brandeis recently decided it could no longer afford to be need-blind in admissions, so it just won’t offer a place in the entering class to a certain number of qualified applicants with substantial financial need. NYU meets on average only 69% of need, and of course with a higher COA, the NYU student who gets “gapped” is likely to face a bigger gap than the in-state student who gets gapped by Minnesota. </p>
<p>Once you get beyond the top handful of private schools, most private schools don’t have a lot of money, and most don’t come close to meeting 100% of need. And since private schools generally have a higher total COA than public universities, it’s probably still the case that most students, most of the time, will find an in-state public university the less costly option. It’s primarily high-performing, high-need kids who get into one of the handful of wealthiest private schools that meet 100% of need who generally find the reverse. </p>
<p>Even at those wealthy private schools, however, most students would have found their in-state public the cheaper option. At Notre Dame, for example, 48% of the students are full-pay (this is fairly typical at private schools, except for HYP which have more generous FA for kids from somewhat more affluent backgrounds). All of those full-pays had a cheaper in-state option, but elected to go the luxury route. And another sizable fraction–perhaps as many as 25%?–had an EFC somewhere north of their in-state flagship’s COA (again, for Minnesotans $24,000) but below Notre Dame’s COA of roughly $59,000, so they got some need-based FA at Notre Dame but that still left their net cost higher than at their state flagship. And of the rest, some unknown fraction would have found found that after comparing FA awards at their public flagship and at Notre Dame, the public flagship would have been comparable or lower in net cost; that depends on the particular school, its FA policies, and the particulars of the FA award at both schools.</p>
<p>Bottom line, then, it’s really only a tiny fraction of all students who are going to find it cheaper to go the private college route. If you’re one of them, bully for you! But don’t make the mistake of generalizing on your own experience.</p>
<p>^^^It’s not true in my state either. Every year students in our high school turn down $20,000+ scholarships from private colleges to go to state universities, because the tuition is still lower. Full scholarships are different, but there aren’t many of those.</p>
<p>Some notable attendees/alumni of Arizona State: Jimmy Kimmel, Steve Allen, David Spade, Nick Nolte, Kate Spade (designer), Doug Ducey – Former CEO of Coldstone Creamery, Arizona State Treasurer (2011–present), Craig Weatherup – former Chairman, PepsiCo, Temple Grandin, Pat Tillman, Phil Mickelson (golfer)…</p>
<p>The state school vs private COA after merit varies upon region. PA has a large amount of privates, many LACs, that have a large academic range. For those middle class with over 1800 SAT, 3.5 GPA and many athletes, the privates DO usually come out lower cost or same cost. </p>
<p>Merit at our state schools has dropped considerably and concurrently with the 7 1/2-8 1/2% COA increases. </p>
<p>Penn State/Pitt are $27-$28K COA. Our directionals are $18-$21k.</p>
<p>EVERY FAMILY should look carefully at the COA, merit and NPC. Never assume you will not get FA at top schools. Run the calculator! Remember, as bclintonk pointed out, each private school determines need differently, even those who promise to meet full need.</p>
<p>Is there a way to put a sticky next to bclinintonk’s fantastic post?</p>
<p>The info offered should be a must read for everyone.</p>
<p>Some of the better state schools do have more money, in the first place. Eg, UVA’s endowment outstrips W&M. Friend’s boys, both top performers, Fafsa EFC: about 9k: one got 2k last year at W&M (a type of grant supposedly eliminated for next academic year, she’s waiting to hear.) His brother got over about 30k, at a top regional private, incl merit. We were offered zip by our flagship and both kids are getting great funding at “meet full need.” So, it depends. You don’t get through all this without research.</p>
<p>UVA: over 5 billion, W&M, less than 1 billlion? Mich 6 billion, I see UAriz at maybe 500 million plus.</p>
<p>bclintonk–sure, your numbers work out if you only compare one of the least expensive State Flagships to one of the most expensive private schools that does not give merit aid at all. There are plenty of VERY, VERY, VERY good private schools around the country, and in your state of MN, that give very generous merit aid to students bringing the COA well below the U of MN. The private schools we have considered have VERY healthy endowments and are not struggling for money at all, yet every single state school we’ve looked at has had major budget cuts or have raised tuition significantly. The reality is, a student with a 3.5 or better and an ACT (or SAT equiv.) of 26 or better can find plenty of places around the country to attend that come in FAR less than $24,000/year. With the exception of Notre Dame, NO school on our kids’ list (twins so 20+ schools between the two of them) comes in over $20,000 after automatic merit aid and less than that if they get other scholarships. Financial aid not even considered into that, strictly merit aid not dependent on financial need. It is also rare for an in-state student to receive any or much institutional merit aid from the U of MN.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that wouldn’t be Carleton which meets 100% of need but gives only a few modest merit awards, averaging $3,268 for freshmen and $2,440 for all undergraduates. And Carleton only spends about $312K a year on institutional merit aid, so at $2,440 a pop there are only about 128 students total receiving this money, or about 32 per year. So UMN is going to be cheaper for just about everyone with an EFC of about $24,000 or higher. Again, 48% of Carleton students have no financial need so they get no need-based FA and little, if any, merit aid. Total COA at Carleton is about $56K, and generally students with EFC in the $24K to $56K range will be paying mroe to attend Carleton.</p>
<p>It probably wouldn’t be Macalester, which also meets 100% of need. Macalester gives out some merit aid, about $800K per year from institutional funds. They say the average merit award is about $10K, which would be enough for about 80 merit awards in any given year, or 20 per class. So I’d wager that most Minnesotans attending Macalester would find it cheaper to attend “the U,” even if they got not a dime of FA from the U. Total COA at Mac is slightly north of $56K. </p>
<p>It probably wouldn’t be St. Olaf, which also meets 100% of need and gives out some merit aid, again with an average award of about $10K. Here the total given out is more substantial, though, about $6 million annually in merit awards from institutional funds, versus about $44 million in need-based FA from institutional funds. At $10K per pop, that $6 million would support about 600 students, or 150 per class–just shy of 20% of St. Olaf’s student body. So that’s not bad. Of course the average merit award is going to bring St. Olaf’s $51K COA down to $41K, still well above the $24K COA for a Minnesota resident at the U. That’s an average award; no doubt some are bigger. But the merit award would need to be $27K to bring net COA at St. Olaf to the level of the U, and there can only be a tiny handful of those.</p>
<p>Those are the only three Minnesota schools that get much attention on CC. And for good reason, because as far as I know they’re the only three that meet 100% of need. A little further down the LAC rankings you have Gustavus Adolphus. They don’t have enough money to meet 100% of need; they meet full need for only 47% of their students, but on average they come pretty close, meeting an average of 94% of need. Still, that means almost everyone with need is getting “gapped” at least a little bit. They do give some merit awards, averaging a little over $10K, and it looks like for National Merit Finalists who designate Gustavus as their top choice, these can be quite generous (up to $27,500 if the National Merit Award is combined with a Dean’s Scholarship or a President’s Scholarship, which is not automatic). So basically a small handful of kids are going to get big merit awards, a large number will get smaller merit awards (but not nearly enough to bring Gustavus’ approximately $50K COA down to the U’s COA for most merit recipients), and everyone else will pay EFC “plus” (the “plus” representing the gap between calculated need and the need-based FA award). This is pretty typical. Colleges with less money often give more merit aid, in effect rewarding high stats while gapping people with lower stats and high financial need. It helps them get some of the students they want. I can’t criticize them for doing it. But it still means that for most Minnesotans, it’s going to be cheaper to attend the U than Gustavus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. In 2010, 55% of U undergrads were determined to have financial need, and 55% received need-based FA, with an average need-based grant award of just under $8K. That meant that for the average Minnesota resident receiving need-based FA, total COA after the need-based grant was about $16K. In addition, 35% of in-state undergrads got merit awards averaging about $3K. Since these figures aren’t supposed to include merit aid going to students with financial need, I’d assume these are separate groups of people. If that’s the case, then probably about 90% of Minnesota residents got some kind of aid, either need-based or merit, bringing the average net COA for Minnesota residents to probably somewhere south of $20K. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m happy for you. My only point is, statistically speaking, this is just extremely rare. Most students are still going to find an in-state public is their cheapest option.</p>
<p>^ Aid projections are very hard to quantify. Using MN as an example, if the average “need based scholarship and grant award” is $8800 (cds,) that has to include very poor kids, who got the max, and those who got a smaller amount.</p>
<p>I say this because, back when my oldest was still in hs, I used logic similar to yours to “assume” where she had the best chances of getting the best packages. Only later did I realize there is no “even split.”</p>
<p>In the category I call “fun with numbers,” note that, of the 2630 (out of 4300 freshmen who asked for aid) who were offered “any need based scholarship or grant aid,” 982 had need fully met. Need, here, is the college’s perception, not the realities the family faces. It’s very tricky to judge or predict based on averages.</p>
<p>Yes, 25k is cheaper than 57k. But, there are private colleges where the numbers they tout are higher than that $8800 average. I still think MN is a good deal, though, if you can afford the remainder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No doubt. Averages are just that, averages, and you need to compare the actual offers. You can’t assume your offer will be at the average figure; it probably won’t be.</p>
<p>I have not the least doubt that some kids find the net cost of a private college more affordable; and nothing I’ve said implies otherwise. My only point is that, looking at the bigger picture, most kids aren’t going to be in that category, because 1) many will have EFCs at or above the COA of their in-state public, and 2) the sticker COA at private colleges is usually tens of thousands of dollars higher than at an in-state public, and 3) only a small number (I believe around 70) private colleges meet 100% of need for all their students, and 4) most of the wealthiest private colleges don’t give merit aid, marshaling their resources for need-based FA, and 5) although a tiny percentage of college-bound students will get merit aid in amounts that reduces their net COA at a private college below what their net COA would be at their in-state public flagship, these students are a distinct minority. The colleges that give such big merit awards generally don’t have enough money to give those big awards to more than a very small number of people; and in many cases they do it at the cost of needing to “gap” much larger numbers of students with financial need.</p>
<p>But if you’re a high-stats, high-need (i.e., EFC < total COA at your public flagship) kid, your best bet financially may be to try for admission to one of the smallish number of schools that promise to meet 100% of need. And if you’re a high-stats, low-need kid (i.e., EFC > total COA at your public flagship), your best bet financially may be to go for one of the schools that offers extremely generous merit aid for kids with your stats. These will generally not be as highly ranked as the schools that offer only need-based aid, but there may be some exceptions.</p>
<p>
Agreed, and if ranking is your primary criteria, then you would pick the highest ranking school you could get accepted to and afford. If ranking is not your only criteria, then picking a picking a lower ranked school might be the better option for other reasons, unfathomable to the ranking obsessed.</p>
<p>Some of the expensive privates will provide significant aid if needed and a few (Duke, Wash U, Vandy) will provide merit aid as well (assuming your daughter is a top student). My advice is to let your daughter apply to three or four dream schools, but tell her to also apply to at least two matches and two safeties (including two in-state publics). </p>
<p>Also, I hear what you are saying about prestige being a nebulous factor, but the top privates are prestigious for, among other reasons, providing terrific educational opportunities in many areas (plus beautiful campuses and great facilities). </p>
<p>I employed a similar strategy with my oldest son last year. He applied to a few dream schools (Hopkins, Duke, Vandy, and Chicago), but also to a couple safeties Ohio State and Wake Forest and two terrific in-state schools, UVA and W&M. He decided to attend UVA where many of his friends are going.</p>
<p>Yes, muckdogs07. The OP should definitely check into some of the schools such as WUSTL, Vandy, and Davidson. For top students, they have full tuition scholarships and Vandy, at least, stacks need on top of that!</p>
<p>My son would be one in the high stats, fairly high need category. (A little under 80K for a family of 5)</p>
<p>He had basically a full ride at Vandy (would have been billed under 1K a year) based on full tuition scholarship and need stacked on top of that, almost full ride at Caltech (would have been billed about $1,400 a year) that was all need based, and a full ride plus at UT Dallas. (all need based)</p>
<p>OP,</p>
<p>I was very careful in helping my son pick out 10 schools (some got added/dropped as he went through the process and the final number was 10) that seemed likely that somehow, we could afford, either by our need (our EFC was about 10,800, which we couldn’t afford but we concentrated on schools that seem to be more generous than EFC) or that offered a shot at either full tuition or full ride. Equally important was whether or not they had strong math and physics, good music, the right size student body, and a location that seemed appealing. It was a lot about the money but definitely not all about the money.</p>
<p>So, his final list was three safeties (admissions rates of about 49% or more) and about 7 match/reach schools (admissions rates of about 20% down to 7%) based on his stats.</p>
<p>Our son did <em>not</em> apply to any state schools. They are all too big and, quite frankly, too expensive (or so we thought at the time, not realizing that we qualified for a Cal Grant A, but whether that would have been able to be used at a state school, I don’t know).</p>
<p>In the back of our minds, we were ready to accept any results including all rejections and him heading back to the local CC. For us, that was important that we not have any expectations.</p>
<p>He was very, very fortunate to be admitted to all his schools.</p>
<p>The two Ivies he was accepted into were generous but one much more so than the other, the generous one not packaging any loans. </p>
<p>In the end, he chose probably the most expensive of his final choices, MIT.</p>
<p>However, it turned out to be one of the most affordable choices. First, we appealed the financial aid package and got more $$. Second, we knew that he was a NM winner (corporate scholarship) and that was always a possibility of being his “ace in the hole”. When he chose MIT, he took a risk because we didn’t know the amount of the NM (it was to be determined by our financial information). He was prepared to take out at least 10K worth of loans over 4 years.</p>
<p>When he got the maximum amount, the school suddenly became very, very affordable and it is likely he won’t have debt.</p>
<p>Looking back, yes, the state school would have been affordable because of the NM and possibly the Cal Grant, but he was very clear he didn’t want to go to the local UC for a number of reasons. </p>
<p>I think kids should try to see things realistically, but I don’t think parents should force a child to go to a certain school because it’s the cheapest option. It takes a lot of work to look around, evaluate what type of student you have, what outside scholarship options you have, and where you might reasonably expect to get in.</p>
<p>I may not look any farther than the local CC for my next child if that is what he/we think would be the right fit for him.</p>