<p>With merit aid, the low reach school wasn’t all that much more expensive than the financial safety. But it was also his favorite of the schools to which he applied. And – important – we CAN afford it without loans. If it had required loans, not sure we would have given him the green light.</p>
<p>Blossom: I think that the “value” crowd" also gets told fairly often that if they had not been such spendthrifts or dared to go on vacation, they would have plenty of money to fund the dream school and that they are selfish if they aren’t will to shell out full tuition. It works both ways. There are supporters and detractors on both sides of the discussion.</p>
<p>For most, the difference between HPYS etc and a directional U is pretty clear and the money may be well spent for the higher cost. For most parents considering full pay vs value, however, the difference is between the State Flagship or even an OOS public vs a research U or a LAC that is not a super elite, but may be ranked more highly. The value school is more likely the State U or even a lower ranked school with merit money.</p>
<p>I wish my kids could choose their colleges with no thought to finances. That is just not reality. I am not willing to use up much of the retirement money or, selfishly perhaps, never be able to travel or eat out. My kids, however, are not top 20 admits, so the answer might be different in that situation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two thoughts come to mind:</p>
<p>1) To address the last sentence, I most certainly am not arguing that the “thickness” can only be found at the Ivies or the top 20. The thickness starts to thin out, of course, the lower you go, but we’re not talking about the sort of pedantic “he’ll waste away at Tufts when he should have been at Harvard” nonsense. </p>
<p>2) Honestly? Part of my reason for valuing that “thickness” is social. I have few good memories of high school precisely because I was a nerd, and because due to the prevalence of less serious students, it wasn’t cool to care about your classes, academics, be stimulated by something the teacher said and want to discuss it more, to want to do reading or learning outside of what was strictly needed to satisfy the teacher and pass the class. I know for myself (me, me, me!) I would have had a very hard time being plopped into that same environment for college. It would have been very dispiriting. Being among a group of smart and highly motivated students in college was liberating socially. I could have friends, I could socialize, and it was with smart people, not dummies.</p>
<p>And yet again, I’m not claiming that only elite schools provide that thickness, so don’t straw-man me. </p>
<p>" It’s more along the lines of “we’ve managed to be full pay by giving up luxuries” then citing things like designer handbags, pricey cars, and vacation homes, and we “scrimped and saved” – our raises, 2nd incomes, retirement funds, income from our rentals – without realizing most of America has none of those things. "</p>
<p>In a 2-parent household, assuming no extenuating circumstances such as a disabled child, it is a choice whether to have a second income or not. If you make the choice not to have the second parent work - which is certainly a valid choice - you do have to live with the consequences. But a second income doesn’t strike me as a “luxury” the way a vacation home is. </p>
<p>I think what he/she meant was that it is a luxury to be able to put one’s entire second income into savings. Obviously, that means one of the spouses makes enough money to support the family alone–and few people enjoy that situation these days.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>" How did you justify paying for a reach over a financial safety? " </p>
<p>I think there are many answers to this question and it boils down to personal situations. What you can afford, the perceived value of the “reach” school and how your child may benefit. Will that school give him/her an advantage? How many other children there are to educate. etc. etc. etc. There’s no simple answer but I found it very interesting to read the other responses since my husband and I are grappling with this very issue. There were some excellent replies and that is why I decided to share my story and explain why we ultimately chose the “reach” school for my daughter, at great additional expense and gave some background information as to how we arrived at that decision AND why I might still be questioning my decision. Obviously, we can afford it, but not without sacrifice. But no, I’m not going without dinner to do so either. I get it that I am more fortunate than some on this board. I also realize I’m not as fortunate as some others. Such is life.</p>
<p>I find it very disturbing that some feel they can judge and criticize others for what they do or don’t do or how they do it. There is no need for that, just share your story or insights. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl A second home is not a “luxury”, it is also an investment. Selling my vacation home is no different then selling stocks or liquidating any other asset. Back in the early 80’s, we purchased a small beach bungalow for a nominal price, paid it off over many years and lucky for us, through appreciation it’s now worth about ~$200 K. Not that I owe anyone an explanation but I have lived my life very frugally, drive a 14 year old car, and work 60 hours a week and I will not be retiring any time soon. I’ve done this so I can give my children the important things in life. (and I’m not talking about smart phones) We also give back substantially to Rutgers and are considered “major donors” because we believe very strongly in the value of education in our society, and because our Rutgers education has given my family everything we have. I’ve also instilled this quality in my children. My son and his wife at age 29 have already funded a $90,000. RBS scholarship and intends to do more. He donates his time by mentoring bz students. He has also pledged $40,000. towards his sisters education. He wants her to go Ivy. All of my children are thrilled for her. That helped seal the deal.</p>
<p>I would not have wanted to go to college with a whole bunch of kids who were exactly like me. I wanted more variety. I want my kids to have classmates from many backgrounds. Many of the least interesting people I’ve worked with are those you are all referring to as ‘thick.’</p>
<p>Tying this in with the discussion on having a full college experience, I want my kids to try it all - academics, sports, theater, study abroad, road trips, interesting guest speakers. I want them to have smart and studious friends but to have some that may not have had it so easy in college (or high school), maybe some that can figure out what to do in an emergency, some that really know how to have a good time. Neither of my kids wanted to go to a school that is smaller than the high schools they’ve attended (the largest was 3200 students), so that eliminated a lot of LACs.</p>
<p>“I would not have wanted to go to college with a whole bunch of kids who were exactly like me. I wanted more variety. I want my kids to have classmates from many backgrounds. Many of the least interesting people I’ve worked with are those you are all referring to as ‘thick.’”</p>
<p>For some of us, our state flagships would have had less diversity and a “thinner” concentration of serious, smart students. For others, their state flagship would have had that diversity and a "thicker’ concentration, esp in honors colleges. </p>
<p>Yes, most kids are going to their local schools-community colleges , flagships or other state schools. Most will do fine and the most motivated of the bunch will tend to do very well. I guess we took the middle ground with our kids- full pay for their instate schools . We had good instate choices and did not want to pay more than instate costs for a more supposed elite private school. On the other hand, we could have paid much less if we had had our kids pursue merit , go to CC or to the local school and live at home and commute ,etc. </p>
<p>Sally, you don’t think that other fields are as competitive as academia? There are plenty of industries and sectors which are highly competitive- thousands of applicants for very few spots. My point is that if it’s important for a PhD student to have a highly regarded terminal degree (which I absolutely don’t argue with) it’s also important for a BA or BS to have a highly regarded terminal degree- which for many kids means their undergrad and only degree.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean prestigious- when I used to hire mechanical engineers, one of my favorite recruiting targets was U Missouri at Rolla. Fantastic academics, fantastic faculty, incredible opportunities for its students. Hardly a school which flows off the tongue when you ask about highly regarded academic programs. (it’s changed its name by the way but it’s still in Rolla). That’s why I dispute the notion of “where you go doesn’t matter”. Every field has its list of both the big boys (Michigan, MIT, Berkeley- all powerhouses in engineering) and the hidden gems. But it’s just intransigent to claim that a kid has the same experience studying literature at UVA as he would at High Point.</p>
<p>That doesn’t make me an elitist, and I don’t care that High Point might cost twice as much or have a higher socio economic student body than UVA.</p>
<p>Funny reference to High Point and UVa, blossom . My oldest went to UVa and trust me, there is no shortage of a "“higher socio economic student body” there. We are not at all poor but my kid had many classmates that were more well off. But there were also kids from more modest backgrounds, so it balanced out.</p>
<p>blossom, I think academia is competitive beyond most other fields simply because the market is so small to begin with. To continue with the classics analogy from earlier, how many universities and colleges even HAVE classics departments in the first place? And of those, how many are hiring in any given year, considering the fact that the positions are generally tenure-track and thus held by the same people for years, even decades? On top of that, funding cuts to public universities mean many departments are shrinking.</p>
<p>This article gives a little perspective:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/on_the_fence/woolf5”>http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/on_the_fence/woolf5</a></p>
<p>I don’t think most people here are saying “where you go doesn’t matter.” Your example of MUST is a good one. The institution doesn’t have to be known to everyone–just the people who matter in hiring. And what matters to them can vary. Regardless, more and more employers seem to be looking for EXPERIENCE as well as credentials, so a candidate from a top-notch school with lackluster internship or other experience might very well be passed over in favor of one from a lesser school who has already worked in the field.</p>
<p>Sevmom- I think this is the trend now at a bunch of the elite public U’s. I read that one unintended consequence of some states’ programs to keep college students in-state by offering automatic merit money was the ratcheting upwards of family income levels. It’s cheaper for the college to offer a bunch of $5K and $7K merit awards than to fully fund kids from needy families. The really exceptional kids from needy families will do better at the private U’s which will offer generous need based aid… leaving the affluent, the near affluent, and some kids of more modest means at these public U’s. Surely not what the voters intended.</p>
<p>But UVA is still a fabulous institution by any measure! </p>
<p>blossom, UVa does not do that in terms of merit. Merit is pretty non existent. My kid was top of SAT, GPA, EC’s , and got nothing and we expected nothing, just the instate tuition. There are about 30 Jefferson Scholars a year that get a full ride but that program is administered through a private foundation, not through the financial aid office. UVa is not known for merit aid . That may change but may not change significantly in the future.</p>
<p>Sally, if some of the “where you go doesn’t matter” crowd would concede that “where you go isn’t as important as many other things, including drive, initiative, intellectual depth and agility, etc” I would quickly come on board. No argument from me on that. It’s the insistence by some posters that anyone who pays full freight is a fool; only the terminal degree counts, the only difference between elite school A and third tier private where my kid is getting a free ride is the “brand” and perceived reputation, is what’s driving me batty.</p>
<p>Don’t sell your kidneys to pay for a college you can’t afford. Don’t go into serious debt if you’ve got an unsteady job, have only one family income, or are close to retirement. Don’t encourage your kid to apply to schools you cannot afford (use the financial aid calculators). Etc. The financial aid fairy is likely not going to be visiting your house anytime soon- what the school predicts it will give you is largely what it will give you.</p>
<p>Where you go isn’t as important as many other things. But that doesn’t mean your kid always/has to/must attend the cheapest option possible, especially if you’ve got some financial resources which you’ve put aside for college. The parents who humble brag here about “I had 200K saved for college but now I can buy her a condo and pay for her wedding because she’s attending East Bumbleshoot and they’re even buying her a laptop!” I find just as condescending as the posters who assume that if everyone gave up buying Gucci we’d all be happily writing checks for 60K per year. Equally condescending.</p>
<p>Most people are hard pressed to help their kids with college . Most of us here are lucky that we seem to be able to help. We only have to answer to ourselves in the end in terms of what we are willing and able to contribute. I feel good with our contribution for getting our 2 kids started in life-we paid over $100,000 out of pocket to put 2 kids through college. I’m good with that. Can’t even imagine paying $500,000 for two kids but if somebody has that kind of money and wants to spend it on undergraduate education, that is great.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I always find this to be a silly argument. It is as if people compare the highly motivated intellectual who goes to Podunk U with the lazy stupid person who goes to an Ivy. LOL.</p>
<p>The apples to apples comparison is whether that person, with their traits of drive, intellect, etc is better off going to Podunk or an Ivy. </p>
<p>For the person who is highly motivated, intelligent, etc, I believe they should go to the place that will challenge them the most - they will grow a lot more that way. I get that other people like the idea of a big fish in a small pond and that is okay if that is what they want.</p>
<p>Re: UVA and the SES origins of students there</p>
<p><a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools</a> indicates that UVA has a relatively low percentage of Pell grant recipients among highly selective schools, despite its emphasis on need-based financial aid over merit scholarships, similar to many of the highly selective schools with higher percentages of Pell grant recipients.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure how logically consistent that crowd is - at least those on CC.</p>
<p>If they really believed that, I would expect they would encourage their kids to go to some really cheap college that may be rated around 1000-2000 on the Newsweek list…or even go to a CC for 2 years and then go to one of those low rated colleges. I would expect that a highly qualified candidate could take that path and pay practically nothing - and even score a TA gig for extra cash.</p>
<p>I don’t see that here on CC. That crowd seems to talk more about their kids going to some school which is usually in the Top 50.</p>
<p>just a response to the “intellectual thickness” rationale: I think there is a good deal of romanticizing going on, as well as selling short the quality of students and course offerings at mid-range colleges. The students who have the credentials to get into Ivy league schools are not typically making the monetary choice between Ivy League and Podunk Directional U --they are turning down spots at Yale to take a merit award from Vandy, or a full ride from Rhodes. (Old timers here know I am talking about real students who have faced these choices, and shared the outcomes). This year, in another thread, it was a student opting for a full tuition scholarship at Mt. Holyoke vs. taking on debt to attend Pomona or Wellesley. </p>
<p>My daughter found excellent academics when she attended an elite college – but I have a feeling she’d laugh at the “intellectual thickness” argument. Sure, there were a lot of smart students around --but there were also a very large number of students who were there because of their athletic prowess (not their intellectualism), and a significant of students who seemed to be there to get drunk. Of course that can also be found at the state U. – and I have no clue as to how the balance is struck – my point is just that the elite colleges are not quite the bastions of intellectualism that parents wish them to be (any old time CC’ers remember the frequent poster at Cornell who managed to drink himself to death in very short order?) – and the lesser cost options they are weighing may not be that significantly different in terms of academic offerings. Again - it’s not Harvard v. Podunk, but it may very well be Harvard vs. Berkeley or Michigan. Sometimes the in-state flagship isn’t all that bad. </p>
<p>It is my impression, based on the frustrations I heard voiced to me over the years, that there is also a certain “social thinness” at the elite schools – perhaps partly a function of their prestige and selectivity. That is, if there was indeed an “intellectual thickness” then it may have come at the expense of shutting out a certain kind of social diversity. That is one difference between my public U. experience and my daughter’s experience – there was much more economic diversity among my college classmates, as well as more diversity as to age and background of students. For me that was an asset and part of the learning experience. </p>