Eighty-eight percent of students go to schools where tuition and fees are lower than

Parents Forum
41

<p>We've got to be careful about false dilemmas: either nonresilient, nonindependent, pampered elitist kids OR resilient, independent, hardworking nonelitist kids.</p>

<p>My kids - full-freight payers at top schools - always worked to pay part of their tuition, both summers and during the school year. Granted the summer jobs were what many would call elite in themselves, but they still required hard work, resiliency, independence, etc.</p>

<p>I know quite a large number of "non-elite" families whose kids aren't as hard working as some elite ones - and vice versa.</p>

<p>There is simply no necessary connection between resiliency/willingness to work/other important values on one hand, and whether one is "elite" or not on the other.</p>

<p>PS my kids went to public schools; my "elite" dollars came from public schools, a third-tier undergrad school, an Ivy grad school, and a ton of hard work. No inherited money.</p>

42

<p>Garland, the vast majority of college bound kids do not have the stats in order to get into the highly funded private schools that give the kind of aid you are talking about. The way that parents and kids on this forum bandy about their perfect and almost-perfect SAT scores or recite the number of AP's their kids have taken is just one more aspect of the reason I call it an elite game. If the kid can get into Harvard, lots of $$. But move down the line of selectivity -- to do that, all you have to do is have a kid who scores in the 1300/2000 range of SATs, no matter how high the grades -- and you are also in the realm of the colleges that are not need blind, do not guarantee to meet 100% aid, and leverages its aid dollars. </p>

<p>You also would be surprised how little financial aid any college that uses the CSS Profile can get away with giving to a family because they attribute nonexistent assets and nonexistent income as financial resources. Self-employed parent? Add in a business valuation of at least the amount of one year's income, even if the parent is simply a free lancer as opposed to a business owner -- all income from self-employment is deemed a "business" regardless of whether or not there are employees, tangible assets, or an inventory. Divorced? Add in the ex-spouses income, regardless of whether he actually contributes anything. Homeowner? Add in the value of the home equity, regardless of whether there is any realistic way of borrowing against it -- lenders generally won't allow homeowners to borrow if more than a given percentage of their income already is required to pay the existing mortgage and other debt. Thus -- colleges use elite standards for determining the amount of "need" they will meet -- elite because it works on assumptions that apply to the upper class.</p>

43

<p>calmom, I'm not sure what your gripe or gripes plural are, & that's important because some of them contradict each other.</p>

<p>You complain, essentially, about how non-egalitarian (i.e., elitist) the "game" is, yet you state (correctly, in the view of most of your fellow CC parents) that reputation does not always equate with the academic product.</p>

<p>You state that overflowing aid is available mostly to those admitted to elite institutions, yet you also (correctly) state that great publics like UC may provide as good, possibly better, an education & at a price more accessible to the larger middle class.</p>

<p>You say that public education produces more "resiliency & independence," yet you want the thus supposedly inferior private education to be more widely available.</p>

<p>(etc.)
And while I would come down more on the side of marite on the distinctions between elite & elitist, I will agree with you that the system or the "game" is certainly not egalitarian & probably not equitable. That would be really important if there really were a one-to-one correspondence between education & future income. But we've seen that it isn't. There are barely high-school grads making fortunes in real estate, the stock market, & other careers. There are attorneys who did NOT graduate from even a private U, let alone top-tier, who are living in mansions & are partners in elegant law firms. And on and on. Recently on a radio talk show the founder of Kinko's was discussing his background & success. His "background"??? Dyslexic, barely admitted to public State college (I think), graduating with C average, he said. Definitely not "elitist." </p>

<p>And since the less-educated or less-elegantly educated often end up with better incomes & lifestyles, why do you care so much about those who strive for designer-name academic opportunities?</p>

44

<p>My S evaluated schools simply on the basis of what he thought the best fit for him was. There was a mixture of private and public. That he chose a selective private, and he could attend (full-frieght), is something for which we have worked hard. Education is not the same at all schools. It is not the same at all private schools either for that matter, and different doesn't necessarily mean worse (e.g. UChicago & Brown). </p>

<p>As for pampered, my kids work much harder in school and after than I did at their age. They are the ones who </p>

<p>I was a first generation student who knew nothing about "elite" schools (community college to 3rd or 4th tier state U's, and eventually to an "elite" grad school). It all seemed to work for me. </p>

<p>As far as getting a career head start by being at a private, it all depends on what one wants to do. Plenty of state school kids end up in top graduate programs which are X1000 more important than where one went to undergrad school. In the past 25 years, I don't think anyone has asked where I went to undergrad school. My S is not at his school of choice because of the promise of future success or some idea of prestige, but for what it will contribute to the person he is today.</p>

45

<p>Here's another thought...with very bright kids, don't you think it's a good idea to keep them challenged academically and surrounded by like-minded peers? Do you think it would be a good idea to have all that brain power bored, and looking for something to do? I hope we've raised our kids to have a strong moral compass -- this was my primary reason for sending them to private religious schools. But I'd hate to see what creative things they could come up with without a heavy workload!</p>

46

<p>Epiphany, I guess at this point my gripe is that people distort what I say in order to argue my points. I say X, you say I said Y & Z and then attack me for my inconsistency. </p>

<p>I said that the college admissions rate race epitomized on this board is an elitist game, one which the vast majority of people can't afford to play. I used the phrase "elitist game" in the same sense that it used on these web sites:
<a href="http://www.sabruk.org/history/bat.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sabruk.org/history/bat.html&lt;/a> ("Cricket remains an elitist game")
<a href="http://thestar.com.my/golf/story.asp?file=/2005/9/11/golf/11929908&sec=Golf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://thestar.com.my/golf/story.asp?file=/2005/9/11/golf/11929908&sec=Golf&lt;/a> (" Golf in Malaysia is somewhat still an elitist game")</p>

<p>I didn't "compaint" that it is "non-egalitarian" -- I pointed out the FACT that it is. To which most people reply in a huff that they think their money is well spent, apparently unaware that that the vast majority of people do not have the option of making the choice to spend money the do not and never will have.</p>

<p>I didn't "complain" that abundant financial aid was available only at elite institutions- rather I used that to point out that, again, the private college thing is for the elite. </p>

<p>I didn't say that public education produces resiliency & independence -- I said that we non-elite parents have to "invest what we've got into raising really resilient and independent kids instead"... geez, now you are giving the public school credit for what I attribute, rightly or wrongly, to parenting?? And I said that in response to a litany of people claiming that their decision to spend private education dollars was because the public schools were so poor - in one way of another that their children could only thrive and be nurtured and do their best if they were able to study at Amherst or Princeton or Williams or whatever elite college turned out the be the best match for their kids. With the implication of course being that some kid with ADHD and SAT scores in the 500 range from an underfunded urban public school will somehow find the state university with its typical class size of 200 students to provide exactly the nurturing and support that helps the lower classes thrive. I mean, given the fact that I don't have the financial ability to pave and pad my kids' way through life, I figured that giving them a few survival skills might do in a pinch.</p>

<p>And I didn't point out the merits of the public university by way of complaint - I pointed it out as a way of illustrating the fact that the elite are spending their dollars on something that is priced far out of line to its the comparative value. That is, the inflated costs are part of what makes the whole thing an elitist game, like a $150 bottle of Dom Perignon champagne. I'm sure the vintners can wax eloquent about why a 750ml bottle of fermented grape juice should cost so much more than a six-pack of fermented hops -- but people with $10 available to spend on their choice of alcoholic beverage aren't in the same game. </p>

<p>It's not about how the money is spent, it is about whether the choice is even there. It is an "elitist game" because it is one reserved only for the very top eschelons. If you have one activity open only to the top 5%, with a sign outside the door that says something like - "only at 89th percentile? Sorry, you can't play" - then it is elitist no matter how much the people in the room like to pretend that they are egalatarian.</p>

<p>Again, I'm not complaining, I'm just stating a fact. This is an elite game that people of means can play. If a parent has the money in the bank to make the choice to spend $40K next year to send a kid anywhere, then that parent is part of the financially elite class and is exercising an option available only to the elite, no matter how much they want to pretend otherwise. If that parent isn't there financially, but is in the game because the kid has perfect SATs and a GPA - then the kid should be congratulated, but the kid is part of an academic elite that also sets him/her apart from the 95% of kids whose academic achievements are good or even excellent but not extraordinary.</p>

47

<p>Calmom, I'm still not sure of what you would like to see instead of the status quo. Socialism? </p>

<p>"I didn't "complain" that abundant financial aid was available only at elite institutions- rather I used that to point out that, again, the private college thing is for the elite."</p>

<p>So are any number of luxury goods -- that's life. Actually, I'd suggest that the private college thing is for either the lower middle class or wealthy -- those of us in the middle class sacrifice a lot to provide our kids with this experience. </p>

<p>"...the kid is part of an academic elite that also sets him/her apart from the 95% of kids whose academic achievements are good or even excellent but not extraordinary."</p>

<p>Are you complaining about some kids being more academically talented than others? My kids were not athletically gifted -- I recognized that early on, and though they always played whatever sport was in season, by high school they chose to focus on academics and music. So? I don't complain that I don't have the next Tiger Woods living here.
It's just another fact of life -- people vary in their talents, interests and abilities. And we had better appreciate those at the high end -- that's where the new technologies, bio-tech discoveries, works of art and literature will come from. I don't want to live in a world without people of great talent, although I'm not one of them. I just benefit from their abilities.</p>

48

<p>If the cost of something makes it "elite," than many public universities that are out of state are also "elite." The cost of UMich for an out-of-stater is pretty up there, higher than many LAC's. The same is true of the UC's . . . </p>

<p>Calmom, I don't think you aren't saying this, but it almost seems like you are saying that if you choose to send your child anywhere but the local state school you are elitist? I'm not attacking here, just trying to clarify. And trying to sort out what is or is not "elitist" in my own mind, too. It's an interesting thing to think about.</p>

<p>My S#2 is going to a pricey private school, UofChicago. I don't know if it is the perfect fit for him. In some ways it is, but I worry about the stress. I think part of the reason he chose to go there is because it has a prestigious academic reputation. I know it bothers me a lot that some kids who would love to go there (or to another pricey private school) and have been accepted choose not to go because of finances. Do most of the kids that were accepted at a pricey private but end up going to a state school because of finances end up doing fine in the long run? My guess is that they do, but I still bad that some don't have the choice to go where their heart tells them they belong. OTOH, since we are able to swing it financially, (barely), I don't feel any (not much, anyway) guilt about sending my S to an expensive school. Does that make me elitist? S#1 is at a CalState, so maybe we're half-elitist?</p>

49

<p>I just made a list of S's mostly middle class friends from his HS. Most ended up at private schools. Many received financial aid of some sort. I'm not sure it is as exclusionary as some may think. One with a family income in the low 30's is at a top Ivy, all expenses paid. I am surprised by how much opportunity there is to go to a private, not in how much there is not. Whether it is worth it or not is up to each individual. The worth of things in the marketplace is determined by the willingness of people to pay for it. From a market perspective, the 40% and below acceptance rates at so many schools suggests they are "worth it."</p>

<p>The American Dream has always been that the path to a better life is available, not that that life is guaranteed. All can aspire to play the elitist game, if that is a goal. Such aspirations are what has built this country. Hard work, good luck (particularly if one defines luck as preparation meeting opportunity), and taking advantage of available resources all work to determine if one gets there.</p>

<p>Frankly, I have never cared one bit where my kids go to school. I believe they would be successful in life wherever they go. I just want it to be their choice. If that is an elitist game, so be it.</p>

50

<p>same at my kids' mostly lower middle class public h s. The kids from the honors classes mostly went to private colleges, many needing signigicant aid. I don't know the nuts and bolts of how they did it , but they did.</p>

51

<p>Calmom,
(1) FACTS/COMPLAINTS.
"Facts" and "complaints" are not mutually exclusive. Generally, "facts" (or assertions) stated in a negative tone or critical context are read or can be received as complaints. Maybe people respond "in a huff" because you sound a little huffy, at least to me. Maybe I'm alone in this, but there's no question that I'm the one that feels that as a group of families who dared to allow my child to apply to an "elite" U (actually several), <em>I</em> have been attacked. I did not lay down the fighting words, much earlier on this thread. Regardless of whether your assertions are facts, assumptions, or guesses, I received all the comments that initiated from <em>you</em> -- not me --about "elitism" as derogatory toward such families.</p>

<p>One of many examples: "I mean, given the fact that I don't have the financial ability to pave and pad my kids' way through life, I figured that giving them a few survival skills might do in a pinch."</p>

<p>(2) "Facts" disputed.
You continue to assert that the universe of students able to matriculate to top-tier private institutions are wealthy. That in no way is true of our family, nor is it accurate about many of my D's classmates. I.M.O. you have some very strong prejudices & stereotypes about private school applicants & attendees & the families who raise them -- not to mention assumptions about <em>how</em> they are raised.</p>

<p>(3) Exactly who is doing the "distorting."
"[...a litany of people claiming that their decision to spend private education dollars was because the public schools were so poor - in one way of another that their children could only thrive and be nurtured and do their best if they were able to study at Amherst or Princeton or Williams or whatever elite college turned out the be the best match for their kids.]"</p>

<p>(That is not what was stated by repliers.)</p>

<p>There is one implied point in your discussion that I think can be fairly stated as accurate, but has been talked "around" by others for awhile, & on various threads. I do think that the least served students (compared to their demonstrated ability & achievement) are those in the 1300/(old) and 3.7 range. That is an excellent student. (I agree.) And there are private, small, challenging colleges that would be great fits for such a student & serve him/her well, but are not in a position to offer significant financial aid. Too often such a student -- unless in a State with a great public 4-yr system -- has to "drop down" to the next, less challenging level for a partially affordable education, therefore. The college of true fit for that student has not the endowment, the publicity, the reputation to accrue the $$ to attract & retain that student. Ironically, too, the pressure on the great State systems, such as UC, is so strong now, that even the above student is too often squeezed out of the best of his or her own public system, due to competitively qualified applicants.</p>

<p>I don't have an answer for the above paragraph. But I do not think the appropriate answer is to deride, accuse, or marginalize those who have been fortunate enough to qualify for & receive generous aid at an "elite."</p>

52

<p>Mstee, I know 2 students whose parents could have afforded the pricey private but chose not to. One set of parents mistakenly(?) thought they would get some financial aid. The other set first told the student they would pay, then changed their minds. Both students headed out last year determined to make the best of it.</p>

<p>One is at an OOS university on a full ride (with perks) and the other is at a private with a large merit award. The first is unhappy and has decided to graduate in 3 years and try for a better fit for grad school. The other is into heavy-duty partying (and this is a shock to all of us). </p>

<p>I am sure there are others who are doing fine, but these 2 I know aren't. I can't say it's because of where they're going to college, but I can't say it's not either.</p>

53

<p>Calmom,
Based on the content of your posts on numerous threads, it appears that you are very frustrated. I understand you have decided that a California state U is the best choice and the $15k COA is all you can afford. You complain that private schools are elitist and not worth the cost. Yet your D is traveling by herself looking for alternatives. Many of us are not that sympathetic. Some of us don't have the choice of great state U's. Some of us have decided to do what it takes to find the best options for our kids. I am not sure if you just like to complain. If you are looking for sympathy you may not have picked the best forum. In case you are looking for validation, by the power of the internet you may hereby consider yourself validated. You can now click the close button and vanish.</p>

<p>There is another option. You might use the knowledge on this forum to explore options. Sure private schools have limited funds and most often act like businesses. Many do provide very substantial need and merit awards. You may find it is possible to obtain private education at no more cost than the state U's. If not the gap may not be that great and your D may be able to handle some work-study and loans. Many of us have found that we cannot get a free car but we can get a Lexus at Toyota prices. That possibility is not something to complain about unless you just don't want a Lexus.</p>

54

<p>Hey, edad: Can you tell me where I might find a Lexus at Accord prices? My Accord dates from before the new millennium. :(
A tale of two roommates at Harvard: one pays full fare, the other gets full ride. They're getting along extremely well.</p>

55

<p>My Izuzu went 12 years and 260,000 miles. Car dealers don't give any free cars. Many colleges will at least come close to covering a need gap.</p>

56

<p>Calmom, I agree with the others that while you are denying that you are complaining, and you seem to deny the flagrant criticism and hostility oozing out of all your posts,-- everyone else can read them loud and clear. For example, you don't just state that these top schools are for those with elite $ (not necessarily true) or elite credentials, you intersperse additional statements that are outright derogatory, such as: "You guys have kids who can thrive only in rarified settings"---and many similar put downs. And likewise, you put down the parents in your last post when you state:"...with the implication that some kid with ADHD and SAT scores in the 500 range from an underfunded urban public school will somehow find the state university with its typical class size of 200 to provide exactly the nurturing and support that helps the lower classes thrive." So, with hostile comments that sneak their way into every concrete point you make, you do way way more than just state "facts"...you manage to sweep everybody who has something you perhaps desire into the kind of unsightly package that makes you feel a bit better. So please don't be surprised by the negative response.</p>

57

<p>over30--I guess I would say that if a kid has a choice of one of the better publics, most likely they'll be okay. But, I happen to believe (here is where my elitism rears its ugly head, I guess) the quality of education and the environment at the publics in some states is not the best. I believe my S#2, even though he is more the "hot house flower" type (not resilient like Calmom's kids), could have done well at a UC or a CalState--California has many fine public schools, and many of the best students in the state attend them, so he would have found a peer group within the large state school. But the public schools in some other states would not have been good for him. I remember talking to a friend years ago who went to a public U in another state (which I shall not name). In her freshman English class, they wrote every paper in class--no outside writing assignments. Just seemed wrong to me then and now. A couple of other high school classmates of my H's went to another public school in the same state and said it was easier than high school. Our high school did not set the bar very high at all, so again, I really don't think the quality of education at that particular public school is what I would want for myself, my kids, or any serious student. So, I feel for those kids who yearn for something better and have no other option except for bad public school. Probably some of them who may have done well in another environment do not do okay.:( .</p>

58

<p>And can I just say?- -some of our kids just are just "not resilient"-- and no, it is not because the parents raised them wrong. Just MHO. (I have both types of kids, resilient and non-resilient).</p>

59

<p>I'm reminded of a story wherein a group of people lived their entire lives within the walls of a museum and from the moment of their birth to the instant of their death, they consistently mistook paintings for windows.</p>

<p>Don't let them get you down Calmom. It IS an elitist game. But while the IDEA is correct, in practice you must also concede that these people suffer. If you give a man a case of bananas in the third world you have opened his eyes to the idea of empire where as before he may have only known hunger. Pretty soon, because of our language, and our inability to know things, we become as snakes eating our own tails. </p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with taking advantage, as long as you know where you stand; because once you start slipping, you're gone.</p>

60

<p>xiggi: the numbers for increased student loans is not new or unexpected. I would be surprised if the numbers went down & would be very disappointed in our educated society, media sources, & greenspan. </p>

<p>Here's why: The cost of staffords and plus loans were at historic lows 2001-2005. As were the cost of home loans. If you were able to consolidate the loans, you would be able to fix the cost of the loans to as low 1.7 to ~3% for the next 10-30 years, which is even cheaper than the best home loan. A ~3% loan with interest deductible from income (not itemized) is now less than what I get on a new 1 year CD of 4%. For those people who recognized that their saving account interest can amortize student loans ( probably a lot of students and parents), have the golden goose. They dramatically increased their loans with near negibile risk to themselves or family. </p>

<p>There are other reasons for increased loans that I will not get into, other than to say the Cost of Living & College costs increased more than the family's income.</p>

<p>Going forward for the 2005-2006 academic year, Loan conditions are quite a bit higher and new conditions to go effect in 2006. Add the fact that these loans are costing our government and hence tax payers additional national debt. </p>

<p>I hope everybody who had a home loan or even didn't need a loan, got a loan this year.</p>