Did anyone's child choose a free ride over a "more prestigious" school?

<p>My DD attends a small liberal arts school on a full tuition merit for four years. She us a Junior now and very happy overall with her choice. She chose it over Berkeley, UCLA, Scripps, Reed, Sarah Lawrence and two other UC's. She will graduate with no loans.</p>

<p>I apologize if someone else has mentioned this, but even parents who pay full freight are still paying a discounted rate. Every college where I've worked has publicly mentioned that tuition covers only a percentage of the true cost of educating a student. In some cases, that could turn out to be a little more than 50 percent. The balance is covered by the school's endowment and current use gifts to the institution. So, if you're looking to apply for financial aid (need-based), look closely at the school's endowment per student figure. If I remember correctly, Swarthmore is one of the highest, if not the highest.</p>

<p>"...but even parents who pay full freight are still paying a discounted rate. Every college where I've worked has publicly mentioned that tuition covers only a percentage of the true cost of educating a student."</p>

<p>That's the party line, but it's baloney. If you pay full tuition, they don't lose a dime. They use creative accounting to guilt-trip you into donating. Do give, but not for that reason.</p>

<p>As I posted earlier, I took a full ride at UCI over Brown, ND, Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, and USC. However, when I was a kid, my parents started a college fund for me and I remember I told them that I wanted to go to Harvard (I was 9 and Harvard was really the only school I knew about at that time). My parents saved for me as if I had to pay for Harvard, so when I graduated from college they still had all that money saved for me and they bought me a car with it and gave me the rest. I invested that money in a down payment for a condo that I bought in 2002 (in Orange County, CA) and recently it was appraised at almost double what I paid for it. So now I am refinancing and using it to pay for my MBA as well as giving my mom $100k to help her pay for a property she's investing in.</p>

<p>Had I not taken the full ride, my life would have totally been different and I might be going into debt to pay for my MBA.</p>

<p>Yalebound72--could you please provide some figures to support your statement? I'd be curious to see them.</p>

<p>Is Yalebound72 a student, or graduate of Yale?</p>

<p>"Yalebound72--could you please provide some figures to support your statement? I'd be curious to see them."</p>

<p>My source, James Tobin, is dead. You might think conveniently for me, but I wish it were otherwise.</p>

<p>But think about it. Schools with almsot no endowment charge roughly what the Ivies charge.</p>

<p>The reality is that those who pay full freight have the privilege of subsidizing the less fortunate. It's lamentable that institutions don't honor this, instead of guiltripping the parents who don't qualify for financial aid because they were responsible, worked and saved.</p>

<p>Schools with no endowment doubtfully have the same facilities, quality of professors, and student support systems as the Ivies.
Some professors make pretty good money, they have to if the college wants to keep them. Upgrading facilities and equipment isn't cheap, and have you seen some of the dorms? even at my daughters school the dorms are bigger and nicer than her bedroom at home. Support services like a private ADD coach, tutoring & health care is included while at other schools may be extra.
The reason why my daughter ultimately decided to attend a private LAC rather than the instate LAC which had been her first choice was because the private school had much better facilities including equipment , critical to her major.If she had been majoring in dance or history, it probably wouldn't have made a difference but in biology it does.</p>

<p>Yalebound72--I sense a misinterpretation of my statement, or perhaps we're comparing apples with oranges. I stand behind my posting that, regardless of what the fees are at any given school, parents paying that full amount are still only paying a small portion of what the school expends per student. Some schools where I have worked (and had access to financials from the treasurer) spend more money per student that what is charged in tuition. "Schools with almsot [sic] no endowment charge roughly what the Ivies charge." Of course, they do. It's a matter of survival in the market place. By pricing themselves competitively with the Ivies, they, in essence, are marketing their product as being on par with the Ivies. They also have to charge that because their endowment payout is insufficient to cover the balance of the costs. Conversely, the Ivies can afford to charge less than what their costs per student may be because they do have the endowment upon which they can rely.</p>

<p>Your last paragraph implies that you have a bone to pick with higher ed institutions but are transferring that to my statement. As a parent, I definitely don't expect colleges to "honor" my kid's is able to pay some or all of the fees, and I certainly can argue, and have done so, that the out-of-state tuition my S paid was a "leadership gift" to the institution. As for a "guilt-trip," please give parents credit for having the intelligence to handle fundraising appeals as they see fit.</p>

<p>I concur with Little Mother. While, the top LACS such as Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore (along with the ivies) charge a sticker price roughly of $40k per student it, the schools actually spends over 80K+ per student. The top schools in the US subsidize their students. </p>

<p>Yalebound you are correct that schools with little endowment charge about the same as a top LAC or an Ivy. HOWEVER, those schools with little endowment cannot afford to substantially subsidize their students. There is a reason why the faculty student ratio at top LACS and Ivies are around 8:1, why most top LACS and Ivies are residential campuses, and why the top LACS and Ivies provide more services, bigger libraries, and other resources in greater quantities.</p>

<p>To further backup my claim that the top LACS expend around 80k per student, check out the financials for Williams College, Swarthmore, Amherst, and Wellesley @ <a href="http://www.williams.edu/wpehe/DPs/DP-28.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.williams.edu/wpehe/DPs/DP-28.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>~Williams Class of '09</p>

<p>"While, the top LACS such as Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore (along with the ivies) charge a sticker price roughly of $40k per student it, the schools actually spends over 80K+ per student. The top schools in the US subsidize their students."</p>

<p>Spending "80K+ per student" is not the same as spending 80K "on" each student. No one really knows how much it costs to educate an Amherst student -- too many costs are indivisible shared costs among a university's multifarious activities. Universities like to allocate such costs to "teaching." But maybe it's to pay for labs to do reasearch for drug companies or industry, which are big moneymaking activities that have little or nothing to do with students. The way it's done elsewhere is to benchmark. In this case the benchmark is what it costs to deliver the corresponding product elsewhere. And it ain't $80K.</p>

<p>First off, it is 80k. Secondly, your statement "Universities like to allocate such costs to "teaching." But maybe it's to pay for labs to do reasearch for drug companies or industry, which are big moneymaking activities that have little or nothing to do with students." is completely off. </p>

<p>There was a REASON why I kept emphasizing LACS. LACS specifically focus on the undergraduate education. Professors there are primarily tenured to teach not to spend an overwhelmingly amount of time researching for drug companies.</p>

<p>We need Mini on this thread.....he had the facts down pat on Williams and other LACS</p>

<p>My thoughts exactly as I was reading this thread. Don't worry, Mini will have a good time eating this one for lunch when he gets back</p>

<p>I'm willing to learn from "mini" but....we'll see.</p>

<p>To some extent, anything the LAC spends-- from Fin Aid to renovation to research-- indirectly benefits each student. The totality of the program offered, from physics to football, is what enhances the prestige, diversity, etc, of the school. Nicer campus & buildings included. Whatever the school spends is spent "on" students. If a better retirement package is offered to professors, this also benefits students by attracting better faculty. You see what I mean.</p>

<p>"If a better retirement package is offered to professors, this also benefits students by attracting better faculty. You see what I mean."</p>

<p>And paying Frank Raines, Ken Lay, Michael Ovitz et al huge salaries benefits shareholders..... </p>

<p>The idea that faculty salaries should be a measure of academic quality was invented by, guess who, faculties.That it has gone largely unquestioned is a testament to the cozy relationship that they have with their admins, whose salaries tend to rise and fall in unison.</p>

<p>Moreover, I truly question the absurd emphasis, easier admission, and spending on athletics. World War I may have been won on the playing fields of Eton, but I doubt that Iraq will be "won" (unlikely) on the playing fields of Amherst, and certainly not Smith.</p>

<p>Does anyone wonder why so many parents look at the rapidly inflating price of private tuition and just say no? Thank goodness for state honors colleges and the great state systems.</p>

<p>Absurd emphasis? Easier admission? Spending on athletics?</p>

<p><slaps forehead!=""> My God...I didn't realize that LAC's were recreational camps.</slaps></p>

<p>(And I doubt that the war in Iraq will be "won" on the playing fields of anywhere. If it is won, it will won in institutes where vocabularies of ethnicity, religion, politics, and economics are the lingua franca.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
I didn't realize that LAC's were recreational camps.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then, do Williams, Amherst, Swarth and the other LACs differ from the Ivies re athletic recruitment?</p>