<p>UCB, I think post 117 is a pretty big assumption considering how many students have “price” next to last on their list. </p>
<p>“primary characteristics (from the student’s point of view) of (a) the academic offerings, and (b) admission possibility and the net price that the student is likely to get”</p>
<p>You’re purporting to speak for millions of students who have all kinds of different priorities. Football is the #1 priority for a whole lot of students. So is location. So is future employability. So is, for some HBCU and women’s college students, politics and the symbolic unity of disadvantaged groups. You’re projecting what you believe their priorities ought to be. You’re right for some and wrong for lots of others.</p>
<p>Price, net or otherwise, was not a consideration at all for me as a college student.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the start of their college search, or by April of their senior year?</p>
<p>Um… both probably. </p>
<p>I do find it hard to believe that more than a few percent of students can have a “cost no object” college search, given the costs that can exceed $60,000 per year these days. (Of course, during the current parents’ generation, college costs were much lower, so a greater percentage of students were able to have a “cost no object” college search.)</p>
<p>UCB, the vast majority of college students do not go to colleges that cost anywhere near 60k.</p>
<p>Even still, I don’t think that’s the STUDENT’S top priority for better or worse. You said from a student’s perspective. I don’t think most students think about costs enough for them to be a top criteria. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/08/21/OSU_freshmen.html”>http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/08/21/OSU_freshmen.html</a></p>
<h1>113 “Since OSU now receives less money for it’s instate students there is more motivation to take the OOS (high marks of course) and charge them even more than the instate student even with the scholarships it needs to offer.”</h1>
<p>I copied the article from the OSU forum. The article mentions that 1 in 3 OSU students is from OOS and that they heavily recruit from other states (sounds like a football team). I believe this serves the function of driving up standardized test scores and providing a higher per student income for OSU. As the article alludes to it is affecting other state schools in Ohio negatively. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, a lot of students posting here do not seem to care about cost, until their parents say in April that schools X, Y, and Z that they were admitted to are too expensive.</p>
<p>Their parents don’t always say that, either. That’s why we have a round of stories about debt and drop-outs every year. Sometimes, they just go.</p>
<p>I think many parents are simply sticker shocked and therefore don’t really consider what they can actually afford. If you don’t think about it, it won’t hurt you. April comes, a decision has to be made and too often for some none are affordable because you haven’t taken the time to consider what is. At that point your choices are usually between two extremes community college or massive loans and many are not inclined to take the community college route. </p>
<p>There is a reason why the government has mandated NPC link on each school’s website.</p>
<p>It seems to me like the problem is not with the EFC or the “sub par” engineering schools but with the dad’s expectations and the daughters test scores. Most in state public universities are still under the 30k EFC for total COA and as has already been pointed out there are some where the OOS COA is well under the EFC for the right candidate. If the student in question is a salutatorian candidate with “a few” AP classes and a 27 ACT it seems like a reality check is in order. It sounds like she is a solid achiever but needs to be willing to look where she is towards the top of the scale which might mean lowering the bar a bit. </p>
<p>I don’t get where the idea of being “penalized for raising good kids” enters into the equation at all. There are lots of nice, bright, civic minded, high achieving kids who go to good local schools and do well and find jobs and are happy and go on to raise more good kids. Every kid is special in their own way but not every kid is “special” on a global scale.</p>
<p>A kid can be “special on a global scale” and still be attending a local cc or regional u. There seems to be a false myth of scarcity – somehow we are supposed to believe that there are thousands of acceptable high schools for our kids to attend, almost always located in our home cities and nearby communities, but when the child turns 18, all of the sudden we are reduced to considering the “top 20” or some other exclusive list, and everything else is deemed inferior quality. I mean, where does this idea even come from? </p>
<p>I don’t doubt that Elite U. will be qualitatively better on many metrics than Local Directional U… I just don’t know where we get the idea that “only the best will do” – when we certainly don’t take that view for other aspects of our lives. </p>
<p>I’d note that my d. had a top 2% rank at her high school and a 27 ACT- was accepted to elite-level LAC’s and did well in college She had need based financial aid but also was offered some merit aid from colleges she considered safeties… I didn’t mention this before because my d was a liberal arts major-- so I have no clue how that bears on a prospective engineering major. The subscores would be important – my own d. had higher reading/english scores that were brought down by weak math & science scores. Not a big problem in my mind - beyond admissions - because I knew (and the college ad coms knew) that she would not be studying any math and science in college beyond the bare minimum needed for her degree. Her strengths liked in areas not so easily tested.</p>
<p>I think the OP’s daughter can be successful in pursuing an engineering degree with a 27 ACT – but I wonder why her parents would even want her to attend a prestige school – there are a lot of students who end up dropping engineering or washing out because they can’t keep up. One of the few things that standardized tests probably do test well is the ability to do math quickly and accurately in a high pressure environment. At the college level, there is also a tendency for teachers to grade on a curve, and to intentionally design exams that are too difficult for anyone to get a perfect score. (Otherwise a curve won’t work-- you don’t want your curve coming out so that kids who score 95% are getting C’s).</p>
<p>So if I was the parent of a kid who wanted to pursue engineering but had less-than-perfect stats – I think I would ask the question: "Is there a reputable and accredited engineering college that will provide my offspring with an environment that will support her learning style, and will also provide additional academic support if and when she needs it? " I wouldn’t want to be the parent of an engineering-school washout or see my kid graduate with a C average after 4 years of stress and anxiety. I’d look for fit, and definitely take a long and hard look at all of those regional u’s that do offer engineering programs.</p>
<p>On the other hand, It’s not clear whether the d. even wants to (or should) study engineering. I might have missed something along the way, but it seems to me that the reason that has been put forth is that the father is an engineer, and that’s what he wants. Maybe step #1 is to take stock of where this particular kid’s talents lie, and build the college search around the actual kid who is going off to college. </p>
<p>
I taught for 6 years at a school with a 3-2 program. Students took Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, and Strength of Materials at our school, generally starting in the sophomore year (as is typical), so they certainly got a taste of the subject “earlier” than at the second school. When they transferred, they did fine at the second schools. We also had no real issues with acceptances to Engineering Departments. It’s not as if you are jamming everything into 2 years (which would not work, btw, due to the sequencing of courses). 3-2 programs get a bad rap, but I’m not sure why.</p>
<p>And our degree most certainly DID equate academically to “a traditional engineering program”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quote of the day! I have wondered this myself. And also tied it to a lack of faith in these so-called special snowflakes. Can they really thrive only under the most limited conditions? What does that say about them as people? </p>
<p>Maybe it has to do with parental anxiety about letting go (?) </p>
<p>@sylvan8798 : it’s because of the wide disparities in the 3 part of the 3-2. As an example, Columbia 3-2 has a relationship with seemingly half the LACs in this country, some of whom I’ve never heard of, with wide variations in quality of the student body and probably in the rigor of the coursework as well between those schools.</p>
<p>An engineering student at WashU who tutors 3-2 kids who transfers in to their 3-2 program noted that while some did well, other kids really struggled and it was clear that they were either not cut out for or not prepared well for WashU engineering.</p>
<p>
Why should you have heard of them? Isn’t it Columbia that has to decide whether their preparation is adequate or not? Certainly, many of those don’t have the Columbia student bodies, but does that mean they are unable to succeed at Columbia once they are there? Were that true, wouldn’t Columbia rethink their acceptance of these students? “probably in the rigor of the coursework”? You don’t personally know? Have examples at least? Statistics?</p>
<p>
And some of the kids that spent their first 2 years at WashU also struggle as Juniors/Seniors in the engineering programs. It’s fine to be biased against 3-2 programs, why not just say so? </p>
<p>@sylvan8798 how many students followed through on the 3-2 program to completion compared to the number intending to do so?</p>
<p>^Too small a sample size for good data, but during my time I would say at least half. Considering the high drop-out rate for freshmen starting out as engineering majors, our loss rate was comparable.</p>