<p>Great anology Marite. I am just so glad my parents see the benefits of the best education available to me and my sibs.</p>
<p>sjmon, you really matched my feelings, especially your statement that finding an academically challenging environment for a high achieving kid comes at a price. </p>
<p>For many of us "fit" is not just some vague, warm and fuzzy feeling about a college. Fit has to do with the opportunities and challenges provided. Sure there can be a social aspect to fit, but it is the educational value that is really important and can make a school worth the cost and sacrifice.</p>
<p>SJmom--thanks for your remarks. Yup, fit isn't an abstract to me, at all. As I've said many times before, my D and I both transfered from schools which were not right for us academically, to places we felt more challenged both in and outside the classroom. Could we have gotten diplomas and moved forward from the original schools? Yeah, sure. But neither of us were happy or thriving.</p>
<p>I work at a school where tuition is about 13,000, and r/b maybe 6000 more. For many of the students here, it's the right place. It's small, personal, has many useful majors, has lots of remedial/tutoring help, etc. Most of the students are very low income, more than half commute, many work, have family obligations, and come with severe educational deficits. However, the most academically prepared often end up transfering; it's not challenging for them. These are low income students; they are savvy, and they do know that the fit here is not right for them. Academic fit is not just for the folks with money.</p>
<p>Fit is it. And 8 students in a sociology class is a lot different experience than 560 in a class covering the same content. And lunch with the Spanish prof, and informal discussion over dinner with college masters, and profs with enough time/energy to connect with the students - that's a different experience. You have to struggle very hard to get that at a big public U; not so at many private schools. It's not about elitism!</p>
<p>I am with calmom on this one. I was able to send one daughter to an extremely expensive LAC because of my wife's grandparent's fortunate land holdings. We chose to spend our one time funds in that manner- no one forced us, it was our choice. My d. had a great experience and became an intelligent, creative woman. But, I am very aware it was an "elite" experience. Especially after my d. came back from her junior year abroad in a third world country, it was hard for her to justify the use of such resources for her own personal gain. She now does community organizing with homeless people in a large city. </p>
<p>My d. #2 goes to McGill- a very large university and her first-year classes average over 200, rather than 20. She loves it and wouldn't swap with anyone. While it is about "fit", many people have to wear last year's clothes whether they "fit" or not. Many of the students at State U. could get into the top-rated private colleges- they can't afford the cost, or their parents choose not to pay such costs. They are acutely aware that they start their careers behind those who can attend an Ivy League school. And many cant afford any college. It is the nature of American education in 2005.</p>
<p>We need to affirm how lucky we are to have such resources available and to have kids who are, for the most part, as above average as their colleges. But, we also need to acknowledge our "elite" status- not to brag, but so our kids can learn the responsibility that goes with good fortune- to help those less able in life. </p>
<p>Those who value a democratic society should be very concerned by Xiggi's summary of the trends in college access. "Over the past decade, in both public and private institutions, net price as a percentage of income has risen significantly only for those in the lower half of the income distribution."</p>
<p>Being elitist is an attitude; it does not necessarily come from belonging to the elite.
We have friends whose son won a full ride at our state U but chose to attend Harvard where they paid full freight. Was it elitist? Or did they leave the merit money available for some other student who needed it more?
Let's face it: the crisis in public education is not going to be solved by people stopping to send their kids to expensive schools. Just because I cannot afford (or do not want) to pay for first-class travel every time I fly does not mean that I begrudge those who can do so.
And believe me, my willingness to pay for my Ss' education at top schools has nothing to do with their post-college financial success. They each seem embarked on careers that will not pay very well. And it is fine by me.</p>
<p>Marite, don't you sometimes feel that you just didn't have a choice? Once it was clear that your sons found the right school for them, did you encourage to look for a more economical choice? I think it's not really like buying a car or airline ticket. To me, it's more akin to not paying for a vaccine they need.</p>
<p>SJMOM
I'd say a vaccine is too extreme an analogy. I know I'm paying for a boutique school, but S could clearly have gone to many fine colleges with merit money as NMF. (Unfortunately, he'd have had to hang out at local college for a year to apply as a senior.) At a good, midsize college, I suspect he would have had a good time, academically and socially.</p>
<p>I also know that I got a good education at a large state U, honors program, able to stand out, but I lacked true peers (girls, not guys). Now that I've discovered CC, I think, like Mini, I could have shopped if I wanted to hold onto S's inheritance.</p>
<p>S1 clearly would not have thrived at a mid-sized research university let alone a large state U. Since we felt we could afford it, we decided to pay for a LAC. Most of those that provided a good fit seemed to cost pretty much the same, although there were some where he could have received sizable merit money.
S2 needed to be at a research university but did not want to attend a large state U. Again, I'm sure he could have received substantial merit money at some other colleges, both public and private; some very good ones indeed. But I have real reservations about the use of merit money to attract students who can afford to pay full fare. It means less money for folks who truly need financial aid. So I decided not to use merit money as a basis for my Ss' college choice.<br>
Could either of my Ss done well in a large state U? I suppose so. I won''t ever know.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with marite. How does it help for a kid whose parents have the means to send that kid to a lower cost state school to take a spot from a kid who can't afford a private school?</p>
<p>My S is in one of those expensive schools and loves the intellectual challenge & environment. It is not for future profit that he is going there, but for the experience of going there. So far it has been worth every penny.</p>
<p>Calmom: lets go thru your "assumptions" one by one:</p>
<p>a) "that our very bright kids who have managed just fine growing up in whatever community we settled in and for the most part attending local school now can only thrive and learn if somehow they are placed in to their own personal ideal college";
--just because a student has done well in an academically heterogenous environment doesn't mean that h/she shouldn't desire, for these 4 very special, once in a lifetime years, to experience a type of academic and interpersonal environment among like-minded students that challenges and expands his/her horizens in a very new way. To quote my son, his biggest problem is deciding what wonderful opportunites to take advantage of each day: should he go hear Alan Derschowitz speak, or Antonin Scalia (please excuse spelling?). Should he participate with nationally accomplished debaters on the legislative committe of a political group, or audition to play viola with one of the finest student orchestras in the nation? Now, just because he did fine in high school, is it wrong to reach for an experience such as this if one can manage it financially? That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have had some really great experiences at a state u., but we're not going to feel guilty for enabling him to have something that goes beyond this. </p>
<p>(b) "there is en extreme and highly significant difference between the quality of educaition that can be had at various private colleges and universities as compared to most public ones, rather than a marginal one;"
---the education, ie. academics, isn't the whole issue...as my examples above indicate, the totality of the experience is much much broader than that. I went to a state university and had a wonderful 4 years (that's what my parents could afford), but assuredly, it did not provide the kinds of opportunities and experiences that my children's schools have provided.</p>
<p>(c) "that the 4 or so years our children spend in college are going to determine the course of the remainder of their lives."
---I certainly didn't encourage my children to reach for their schools because I thought that way...at least not in the concrete sense that you suggest. But I feel that these four years, a time of self-exploration and growth, are unique and precious...and I do think their experiences will influence who they become in intangible ways (eg. meeting all kinds of people from around the world, being exposed to mind expanding ideas, being intellectually challenged, not just by teachers, but by peers--all this will have an influence on who they become).
Now, let me not be misunderstood, as we've gone down this road before: there are plenty of very accomplished students at schools outside the so-called elite colleges. And there are many many ways to acquire a quality education. But to suggest that the experiences are all virtually the same, or to suggest that those who seek a top college are doing so just because they want to maintain an "elitist" stance, does both us CC parents and our very hard working kids an injustice.</p>
<p>P.S. If we cared about status, we would have gone with one of the full tuition options and bought a luxury car or fancier home!</p>
<p>Somemom, my "assumption" is that 95% of American families don't have the funds on hand to make the choices you and others so proudly defend as being absolutely necessary to allow your children to flourish. You sit there with elite dollars paying for elite choices available to kids who have elite upbringings and elite credentials.... and then take offense because a single parent with a $50K annual income and public-school educated kids who doesn't have the money to buy into the game calls it for what it is. </p>
<p>I guess us ordinary folk just have to invest what we've got into raising really resilient and independent kids instead. You guys have kids who can thrive only in rarified settings, I've got a 22 year old working 2 jobs.</p>
<p>Calmom: Never said "absolutely necessary" to flourish...never suggested that my kids could "only thrive in a rarified setting"...but rather that this was perceived as a desireable environment if feasible. But you continually gloss over these distinctions to make your point. -- I guess you feel that if such a setting IS feasible and pursued and attained, you must cast it in a negative light.</p>
<p>p.s. my kids are public school (h.s.) educated as well.</p>
<p>Who said anything about thriving "only" in rarefied settings? (One of the false premises from which you start.)</p>
<p>Over and over you've both said & implied on CC that only public education makes one "resilient and independent." I know plenty of publicly educated kids in suburbia whose views are narrow-minded & whose lives are sheltered--not to mention privileged-- compared to my daughters, who have gone to h.school in an urban, private setting -- with student bodies more diverse, aware & who seem to have a more developed, global conscience than the particular suburban public school products I happen to have met. Yet even then it would be as unfair for me to make broad generalizations & jump to smug conclusions about settings, opportunities, and results -- as it is for you, calmom, to do the same.</p>
<p>One thing I have learned so far in life: Be careful about assuming that those in "privileged" places (a) did not earn the right to be there; (b) did not endure much and/or sacrifice much to get there; (c) have attained happiness by being there. You (& I) do not know what any individual's pain is now or has been or will be -- what their struggles, humiliations, losses have been. People in privileged places may have previously developed resiliency through personal pain, family circumstances not related to income, etc. Regardless, neither they nor I need to justify to you or to anyone else why our sons or daughters have had the unmitigated gall to accept offers of enrollment to "elite" [your word] institutions. They were offers of enrollment (certainly in my family's case) gained by legal & moral means, & hardly from any "elite" perspective or advantage. In our case, they were in fact from a setting of poverty, but it wouldn't matter if it were a different setting.</p>
<p>I'm not sure why you think you're the judge of anyone else's right to be in an "elite" setting, but I'm offended by it anyway.</p>
<p>By the way, Calmom, do you feel that your daughter is being elitist by exploring Brown as a possible choice? As a parent of a Brown alumnus, I would say that she is considering a wonderful option for herself, and I hope that if she decides to apply, she has a favorable outcome.</p>
<p>Thanks, Donemom, for leading me to this post. I assume that Calmom is from California, thus the basis for the debate. Except for the flagships in Michigan and Virginia, no other state has the high quality of public universities that California enjoys. Thus when you talk about a "public university" and the rest of us talk about a "public university" we are talking about two completely different types of schools.</p>
<p>Our state honors program brings together bright students into a mediocre academic environment. In fact, most of the students I know that end up at this program are "pluggers" who worked hard and got good grades, but were not admitted to academically competitive schools. I've talked to some of these students and there is no comparison between their experience in the honors program and that of students at top private schools. For one thing, the level of academic challenge is not the same. There is no substitute for being surrounded by highly able and incredibly talented students both in the classroom and out. Professors expect more of students at the top schools and students have to struggle more to meet those expectations. The private schools also have a more diverse student body, and students bring more varied viewpoints into the classroom. </p>
<p>I know from my own experience that having to compete with the best and the brightest inspired me to work harder and gave me a self confidence that I never would have developed at my state school.</p>
<p>As for cost, with the generous financial aid packages my kids have received at their well endowed universities, we are paying about the same as it would cost for us to send them to our State U.</p>
<p>I have always chosen private education for both of my children - and the reasons extend beyond the pure academic pursuits. While it's true that some public schools can offer an academic experience equal to that of a private school, there is more to the picture. </p>
<p>To take it to a basic level of elementary school, it doesn't matter how well the teacher presents the material and how rigorous the program is if the kid who sits next to my daughter is constantly disrupting the class and doesn't come to school as prepared as she does. </p>
<p>In a private school, this child would eventually be removed from the school, if admitted in the first place following a series of "play dates", "interviews" and testing. </p>
<p>Thus, part of what I am paying for is for her to be surrounded by kids selected by the school - kids who can handle the work at the same pace as my daughter and won't slow her down, kids who won't disrupt the environment without being expelled, a teacher who isn't saddled with having to manage a class full of kids who "have" to be there, etc.</p>
<p>I realize not everyone can afford to "create" an environment of choice, but I could so I did....and what I couldn't afford was picked up by the schools from time to time (much more-so in my son's HS years when tuition exceeded $16k)</p>
<p>I feel that I am paying them to set a standard, select a group of children who meet or exceed that standard and go from there....continually weeding out any threat the growth of this garden. In my mind, this maximizes her opportunities and minimizes her risks. OK, this is 2nd grade....but the theory still applies.</p>
<p>Moving on to my S, freshman in college.....I used the maximum opportunities/minimum risk strategy with him from pre-k - 12th....and now with college. And I can't (no way, no how) afford the $45K Ivy League education he is receiving, so I am "on my knees grateful!" (to use Marite's analogy) the airline offered him a first-class seat at a coach fare ($30k fin aid package). </p>
<p>The bar is set very high at his school...and when I walked onto campus with him today and saw his friends hanging out, grinning, having a great time, I felt good knowing that each of these kids is also a serious student who jumped through many hoops to get there, and they take their academics seriously and are making decisions based on the same criteria my son and I are using - maximizing opportunities/minimizing risks. </p>
<p>They have all met the bar and have proven that they can keep up. </p>
<p>Even if their parents are Hollywood stars, Arabian sheiks, oil tycoons, etc, these kids still had to achieve a significant level of academic success to be there. </p>
<p>I want my son to be a sponge on campus...absorbing what is around him....and I want him to absorb while knowing that his school has done the work to create the best environment from which he can absorb, without him needing to work too hard to seek out sources for growth - he is surrounded by it all sides. </p>
<p>I don't want him to attend a school where he is one of the brightest kids. In my mind, that doesn't offer the best value. Just as I don't want to live in the best house in neighborhood. I want the value of my son's experience to be enhanced by those around him.</p>
<p>BTW, I don't think the cost of a school holds a direct correlation to the value. There are more expensive colleges with less rigorous admission standards.....and there are many, many more expensive high schools than the one my son attended, with less impressive grad class results.
You can't simply pay and sit back.</p>
<p>Calmom, 50,000 would be a high end income at the private college I work at. And yet still would mean significant need-based aid. I beleive that Emeraldkity is sending her D to Reed with a similar income.</p>
<p>And as stated above, you live in a state with possibly the best public colleges in the country. I would gladly have sent my kids to Cal, or UCLA, or UCSD, etc., if they could get into them ,which they probably couldn't from OOS. </p>
<p>Our income right now is <45,000. We are not getting need-based aid. We did have a higher income for a few years, and saved most of it. We probably could have manipulated the situation to insure aid for the next two years, but since we can make do w/o, we feel we'd rather continue our frugal ways and leave the aid there for students who need it more . We are not doing so for "elitist" purposes.</p>
<p>Well, I see no shame in being an elitist, if that means that I think that a superior education* (see note below) means you deserve a specific job more than the next person. It would appear, as a country, that we believe that as well. After all, our latest Supreme Court Chief Justice went to Harvard; our latest president/VP nominees went to Yale or Harvard or both.</p>
<p>*Is Harvard a superior education? Without evidence it's hard to be sure, but certainly most people believe it is.</p>