I’m not sure I’ve read every comment in this thread, and it seems to have moved a bit off original topic, but it’s interesting to me the comments from people about “why full pay when you can get aid elsewhere” - isn’t it the case that the kids on full pay at any college are helping subsidize the ones getting aid? Kind of win-win in the aggregate sense, then? (* unless there’s too much debt being used for full pay)
And no particular reason why that matters for private institutions. Their college, their needs, their rules.
I’d point out that the whole legacy thing is probably part of the reason the Ivies hold such allure – it’s not just a matter of choosing a college based on current comparative data, it’s buying into the whole history & sense of alumni loyalties.
When people talk about the networking opportunities that the elites offer, they usually have in mind that their kids will be rubbing elbows with the offspring of the rich & famous & well-connected – not just a random assortment of really smart kids from high schools scattered around the whole country. Probably one reason that MIT never has had quite the allure that Harvard has.
As an aside, I believe Jeff Bezos’ kid is at MIT…
Hmmm. I don’t know about this. Does FA come from tuition dollars? I know that is not the case with boarding schools. Financial aid is allocated from endowment income, not tuition income. Even full-pay students at BS are subsidized by the endowment as the posted tuition/room/board rate does not actually cover the full cost of attendance. At Choate, for instance, the annual shortfall per full-pay student is about $12K (or was when our son attended); the endowment covers the rest, so even full-pay students are subsidized. I believe we were told during the college application cycle that most colleges work the same way–FA comes from the endowment, tuition income covers other operating/education expenses. I guess it probably varies by school, and I suppose you could argue that these incomes are fungible, but I wouldn’t automatically assume that one student’s tuition is offsetting someone else’s.
Obviously, it varies by school. In general, only a small number of elite private colleges have large enough endowments that they can subsidize education to the point that those paying list price are being subsidized.
Now, at a college where a student paying list price is paying more than the cost of education and other services delivered, s/he is subsidizing something. One can argue endlessly about what is being subsidized based on college accounting practices and endowment restrictions, although the fact that money is fungible means that saying that s/he is subsidizing this or that but not something else is rather fuzzy.
Also, be careful about sometimes published numbers of what a college spends per undergraduate student. Some colleges with medical schools have very high spending per undergraduate student compared to similar colleges without medical schools (e.g. UCLA versus UCB). It appears that somehow the spending of the (very costly) medical school gets included in an accounting sense in spending per undergraduate student.
I still don’t get the obsession people have with college rankings. “College x is ranked higher than college y, so it’s better and I should go there.” Who makes up these rules? US News? You probably didn’t know that educational quality isn’t even a factor in their rankings, right? What we have is misinformed students making a big expensive decision based on bad information. The best advice to give is to shop around and find the right college that works for you. Affordability is a precondition before you do anything. That requires doing some math and make sure your debt levels are reasonable. Words like “incalculable” or “immeasurable” are not rational arguments. They’re excuses.
Absolutely. And which rankings list do we put the most faith in? Shouldn’t we also have a ranking of the rankings so we know which one to believe? If so, who would perform that ranking?
If someone comes up with a ranking of rankings and it sells, you can bet it will be followed by many rankings of rankings (or rankings squared?). We’d be just as confused, and soon need a ranking of rankings of rankings (or rankings cubed?). What a silly but profitable business!
This whole thread is kind of rank, if you ask me. 
Common sense tells you colleges with most money are and will be ranked correspondingly high. Take a look at top 5 colleges with most money. I have never seen them ranked outside top 10 in any rankings. Check where HYPSM ranks in terms of endowments.
Are they the colleges that deliver the best education though? I seriously doubt it. But no question in my mind they deliver good to great education though.
@Corraleno I’m sorry if I sounded rude or critical. That’s great that that works for your family.
For many families including mine, a condo in college is not on the table…all the extra money goes towards tuition.