Daughter got accepted, not sure I can afford it

Parents Forum
121

<p>I’ve heard people who say that you get an admissions bump, and that’s probably true (although I’ve never seen it quantified).</p>

<p>In general, if you do not need aid- don’t need to compare packages & are applying to a competitive school with a low admission rate that you * know is your 1st choice* then by all means- go ahead & apply ED if you are sure & want to know ASAP what your next steps are.
( If you get admitted- then you don’t have to make any further decisions- or if waitlisted/denied, then have your next apps ready)</p>

<p>Those who are accepted ED sometimes do have a higher admission rate than RA, however, I have also seen stats that indicate they have better overall stats & need much less finaid, so those qualities are going to increase their admission rate, more so than simply applying ED.</p>

<p>THere are quite a few schools that have EA and even rolling admission- more state schools are having rolling admission, & with the increase in apps- due to the economy & other factors, it is a good idea to get those applications in as soon as they allow you to.
[Early</a> College Applications Are Due Today - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/biemeret-1/]Early”>Early College Applications Are Due Today - The New York Times)</p>

122

<p>

</p>

<p>The incident at the admissions offices place in the early-mid-'90s when I was in high school and California’s economy was on much more solid ground than the current time. As I kept hearing about this issue from folks who graduated from the late '80s till the end of the '90s and later, I’ve been wondering if this was more of a systemic planning/administrative issue and not one solely caused by constrained resources. </p>

<p>That’s not to say that most don’t graduate in 4 years, but Erin’s Dad figures of 66% graduation rate in 4 years for UCB and 67% for UCLA is cause for some concern when compared to most of their academic peers. A third of the entering class failing to graduate in 4 years IS concerning…especially when one compares them to their academic peers…other public/private elite universities/LACs.</p>

123

<p>Simbot - It sounds like you have a good plan to call admissions and re-check. </p>

<p>“but I think you need to jump off the ED train before it crashes.” - Sorry if that was cryptic. I just meant that if the ED school expenses would stretch you to the point of severe pain, then decline it and start seriously discussing the other options on the table. </p>

<p>"how could we have known what FA package they would offer without applying? " There are ways to know approximately via FA calculators, early estimates, etc. But if you didn’t know that, it was the fault of the GC. This is not common knowledge. We were only savvy due to older friend’s problems with Brown ED. I’ve since seen many ED threads on CC, and yours is a common situation. It pains me that GC don’t give better guidance on this and other matters. </p>

<p>Good luck to you!</p>

124

<p>Cobrat…my nieces and nephews have managed or will manage to graduate from UCs (including UCLA and Berkeley) in 4 years of less in STEM majors. </p>

<p>My siblings made it quite clear to them…we’re paying for 4 years. My siblings have a lot of kids, so getting them thru in 4 years or less is super important to them.</p>

125

<p>

</p>

<p>Cobrat, I don’t know why you insist on tearing down the UC system. Their stats for graduation are above the average, including private schools. [Education</a> Pays 2010](<a href=“Trends in Higher Education – College Board Research”>Trends in Higher Education – College Board Research)</p>

<p>That is demonstrably better than UTexas which graduates 51% in 4 years and 77% in 5 years (though it is lower than UMich).</p>

126

<p>

</p>

<p>If your D. applied RD to multiple schools you would have the opportunity to compare awards in the spring, and possibly the ability to use a stronger award from a peer school as leverage to get the favored school to reconsider or supplement its award.</p>

<p>

If it is totally unworkable under any circumstances, you are right – no “harm” other than the emotional impact on your kid. But you could also find out in April that the offers from other schools are as bad or worse as the one you are turning down – and once you turn down the ED school, there’s no coming back.</p>

127

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not tearing down the UC system as you assert. </p>

<p>First, I only discussed this regarding UCB and UCLA, not the other UCs.</p>

<p>Second, I think if many students’ at a given institutions have experienced delays in graduation because there were not enough sections offered of critical core/major courses or irregularly offered so a student ends up not being able to take it during his/her first four years, that’s a serious issue which should be pointed out and ideally fixed through better planning/resource allocation so there are enough sections of a core/critical major course and such courses are offered more regularly. </p>

<p>Especially when this issue does not seem to be a recent phenomenon…but one which has existed for at least the past 20 years from what I’ve heard from those who experienced this firsthand and in periods when California’s economy was doing well. </p>

<p>Third. You’re point is correct if you’re comparing UCB/UCLA with every American private university. Considering they’re regarded, with justification, as being on par with the most elite universities…I believe those two institutions should be held…and they should hold themselves to the higher standards of the latter. Their undergraduates deserve at least that much.</p>

128

<p>Being above the average graduation rate is irrelevant, because UCB and UCLA are not “average” schools and are not regarded as such. For comparison, look at the 2009 USNWR 4-year graduation rates, in the context of the “top” universities and LACs (as defined by USNWR):</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/596884-usnwr-2009-looking-data-xxi-4-year-graduation-rates.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/596884-usnwr-2009-looking-data-xxi-4-year-graduation-rates.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve underlined the 3 public universities (among the many privates) with higher 4-year graduation rates than UCLA, higher of the two. (USNWR, or at least hawkette’s compilation of their data, states UCB’s 4-year rate as 61%.) Also note that of the top 26 LACs (West Point is omitted for lack of data), only Oberlin–which has a popular 5-year double degree program with its world-class conservatory–matches UCLA’s graduation rate.</p>

129

<p>^^ The point is - how many students are commuting to those private colleges so they take a reduced load? How many students at the privates need to work part time to help support themselves and hence take a reduced load? How many of those students have the flexibility to purposely take longer to graduate, perhaps switching majors several times, because they’re not at a school that costs $50K/yr? </p>

<p>My point is that there are a lot of factors that go into the ‘time to graduate’ equation and it’s not simply unavailability of courses as is the assertion by some on the thread. The bottom line is that the majority of students do graduate in 4 years. It’s not that difficult to do for most majors. For some engineering majors the average may be closer to 4.5 years but that’s not terribly unusual at many other colleges and beats the 3/2 programs one sees at many LACs (time-wise). </p>

<p>Cobrat indicates that anecdotally almost all (I think) of cobrat’s many relatives that have attended UCB/UCLA over the last 20 years have taken an inordinately long period of time to graduate - longer than is the norm. I indicated that anecdotablly virtually all of my kid’s roomies and friends have graduated within 4 years with some engineering friends graduating within 4-5 years. This includes people who graduated within 4 years despite taking a lighter than normal load if they’re in one of the majors requiring less work/courses (i.e. humanities) - they could have graduated earlier if so inclined. Most other posters with direct experience through their own kids attending UCB/UCLA (and I’ll toss UCSD into the mix) don’t seem to indicate a great level of difficulty in graduating in 4 years. I don’t know why there’s such a difference in the time to graduate between cobrat’s relatives and what other posters are indicating here and what the stats bear out. </p>

<p>The percentages in keil’s post need to be taken in context as well since I believe they’re comparing those who graduate in 4 years against the total number of students who start and don’t account for the students who don’t ever graduate from the school which I expect would be a higher number at these publics than at many of the higher level privates indicated.</p>

130

<p>

</p>

<p>You forgot to underline W&M (William & Mary).</p>

131

<p>Unless you changed majors (and thus needed to meet new prerequisites), or flunked classes, graduating from UCLA in four years as long as you took 16 units a semester (pretty standard load) and did not need remedial math before whatever math you needed for your major was not hard. 8 am classes were rather lightly enrolled then and now. </p>

<p>But students who had work schedules that constrained class schedules (not an issue for most kids with financial need at an Ivy), students who were parents (not an issue for most kids with financial need at an Ivy), and students who needed prep or remedial classes (not an issue for most kids at an Ivy), or D1 athletes (not an issue for kids at an Ivy) have different issues that may lead to longer graduation times. </p>

<p>It isn’t even close to apples to apples.</p>

132

<p>A friend is a STEM professor at UCLA, and has been there for ~25 years. Said prof said that in the prof’s department 1) currently most students are finishing in 4 and a quarter; 2) time to degree has improved significantly in recent years; and 3) the overwhelming reason for not finishing in four years is needing to work, be it taking off a quarter (or more) to work full-time, or needing to take fewer courses to fit in work hours. </p>

<p>Anecdotal, but a longitudinal anecdotal-ness. :)</p>

133

<p>I don’t know where hawkette’s number for UCB came from. Mine came from the 2010 CDS based on the 2003 cohort. The number from the CDS would be approx the same position and would show four public Us with higher grad rates in four years than UCB/LA. Is there something shameful with having the fourth best public U in the country for graduation rate? And as UCSD/LA Dad stated, some students go to those schools part time while working which generally does not happen at a LAC.</p>

134

<p>Yes it’s an ED situation for us. Here’s the text from the contract:</p>

<p>“Should a student who applies for financial aid not be offered an award that makes attendance possible, the student may decline the offer of admission and
be released from the Early Decision commitment.” </p>

<p>I think this is standard language that everyone uses. I realize that if we decline there is no going back. That’s ok, if we can’t afford it then it just ain’t gonna happen, so it doesn’t matter.</p>

<p>Will be calling them tomorrow, admissions.</p>

135

<p>Oh yeah, we applied ED because the school told us (during an on-site visit / interview) we would have a better chance of acceptance, and better financial aid package. Can’t say if it helped or not, but she did get accepted with a 3.4GPA 1900 SAT. I honestly didn’t think she’d get accepted with those stats.</p>

136

<p>mom2collegekids - regarding spending grossly different amounts on kids. We have two very different kinds of students. One who has never been a great student and barely had good enough stats to get into a state school (we are proud of her accomplishments just the same). And D2 who has worked much harder, she’s a driven and self motivated student involved in activity’s and has earned the right to a more expensive education. </p>

<p>I’m not trying to justify it to you, just saying that kids from the same family can be different, and everything doesn’t have to handled the same. They are different people with different talents and interests, we love them both just the same.</p>

137

<p>Another parent here with extensive ties to the UCs - the ONLY person in our family who could not graduate in 4 years was a transfer from a CC: some of her science courses did not transfer for her biochem major. It’s true that a couple of my relatives did have to take extra summer courses to get in the more popular science prerequisites, and that they had to be very thoughtful and ‘strategic’ in how they built their schedules. But where there is a will, there IS a way to graduate from a UC in four years. And gain a well-priced degree from a world-class school. Few schools in the world have the renown of a Berkeley, UCLA and (in, say, physics) UCSB. Californians are lucky that way, even with all the difficulties the UCs face today.</p>

138

<p>"regarding spending grossly different amounts on kids. We have two very different kinds of students. One who has never been a great student and barely had good enough stats to get into a state school (we are proud of her accomplishments just the same). And D2 who has worked much harder, she’s a driven and self motivated student involved in activity’s and has earned the right to a more expensive education. "</p>

<p>Ditto…only not sure about the working much harder… didn’t have to, but definitely had behavior reinforced by the “student thing”. One of the lucky ones admitted to Cal, but ended up at a private, far away, for $$$. The other one works hard, just not so much at A’s. Good thing he aspires to CSU’s! If he got in to a UC that “fits”, I would be very happy to pay for 5 years. Probably not going to happen…</p>

139

<p>"“regarding spending grossly different amounts on kids. We have two very different kinds of students…” - I agree that it does make sense to invest more in education for a student that has high potential and has worked diligently. And/or to get a good fit where that will make a big difference for that particular student. But as you’ve said, it still needs to fit the family budget. </p>

<p>Good luck with your discussions with the school.</p>

140

<p>

</p>

<p>I can see why you opted to take the gamble of ED under those circumstances. </p>

<p>That kind of pressure would have made me run the other way, fast – I don’t like being pushed toward commitment with nebulous promises – but I certainly see why you’d have the sense that you had nothing to lose and everything to gain.</p>

<p>I don’t know what the financial aid policies are of your d’s school, but if a school says that some financial aid packages are “better” than others, it’s a fair bet that they leverage their aid, giving preferential packaging to high stat applicants. So you end up in an admit-deny situation – that is, you’ve been given an aid package, but it’s a skimpy award, precisely because your d’s stats are borderline for admission.</p>

<p>The college is banking on the hope that the ED app means that your d. has her heart set on the college, and that you are willing to borrow excessively to make your d’s dreams come true – if you buy into that rationale, then it’s a win for them – they get your kid attending with a minimal end financial aid award. If you walk away – it’s no great loss in their eyes, given that your d’s stats were on the lower end of their applicant pool.</p>

<p>The only possible benefit to a college for accepting an unhooked, lower-end stat application is the tuition dollars that kid might bring with them. Otherwise they are tying up a space that could be filled with a higher-stat applicant. That’s why many do leverage their financial aid – the college has no intention of paying its own top dollar to students with weaker-than-typical stats. </p>

<p>That’s why I am very wary of a lot of the hype that accompanies ED. I’m thinking, “what’s in it for the college?”</p>

<p>Sorry your kid has had to go through this process. It’s hard to have her dreams dashed in this way.</p>