<p>I think many people had to change screennames when the site was changed to the new software because of various technical glitches. If fluffy is an old-timer here, it would be nice if she would share her former handle so we can make the connection --but of course that is up to her. </p>
<p>We did face this situation, with music conservatories, my S had a full ride to a well known, if newer/smaller conservatory, and got into some other top programs,including the one he is going to where we are paying near full freight. The ultimate decision for us came down to which he/we thought would be better for him,and with music that comes down to the teacher first, then the quality of the overall program. It would have been great to have that full ride, but he got admitted to a studio of a teacher who is one of the best in the world (and has turned out to be a lot more than that, my S just finished freshman year,he is still in shock about getting in and how great a person and teacher his teacher is), and we have no regrets. The money we are spending on the school he goes to we kind of had allocated, but obviously, it would be great to have that to replenish retirement funds, maybe actually have a vacation once in a while, but seeing what the school has done for him, we have no regrets. If we had told my son he had to go to the full ride school, he would have done it without being nasty about it, but he also appreciates very much the sacrifice we are making and he is putting 1000% effort into it, and seeing his love and passion grow, it is worth it.</p>
<p>Am I saying everyone should do this? No way, I am fortunate that we could afford to do this, and if parents want to take on debt to do something like this, or stretch things, I can understand that, too…A lot of it, too, depends on the difference between the programs, with music you can’t say “a degree is a degree”, it doesn’t work like that in performance, so a local school with a full ride might be saying in effect “don’t do music”, it all depends. On the other hand, a full ride scholarship at a decent engineering school versus going to MIT and paying full ride might work out great. </p>
<p>“I agree that I do not think a rich person should be obligated to fund an elite college, nor do I believe that the failure to fund the elite choice necessarily is shortchanging the child.”</p>
<p>The case I’m talking about was a divorced father who seemed to have tons of money to buy his new companion expensive jewelry and take round-the-world vacations, but couldn’t even be bothered to shake loose a few dollars so that his son could have a winter coat for a Chicago winter, so the kid had to get by in a high school letter jacket, which was humiliating and dangerous. This was a father who, when he remarried and blended families, had his own kids sleep on sofas in “their” new house because god forbid anyone buy them a proper bed. </p>
<p>I don’t know all of their finances, to be sure, but I sure as heck know enough that I can, did and will have an opinion. </p>
<p>“And I can’t fathom how any intelligent person would NOT go through a cost/benefit analysis for a major expenditure – but I certainly do understand how the relative ease of coming up with the money would impact the amount of time and effort put into that analysis, as well as what factors might be relevant.”</p>
<p>I didn’t. The cost differences between the private colleges and universities we were looking at were minimal in the bigger picture, and this was just simply something where – absent something egregious – we weren’t going to consider cost. We deliberately went through 20 years of considering cost on just about everything in our lives to be in a position to not have to consider costs when choosing a college. </p>
<p>We also were fortunate that cost did not need to be a consideration when college was chosen. Having said that…almost everyone of my good friends knew that DD could have attended a fine OOS public for less than $10,000 a year (and the award she had included an inflation protection). She did not choose that school. Fine with us, and no justification needed. DS also did not follow the money. The school where he got his degree was more costly than some of his other choices, and offered him less scholarship money. Again, no need to justify. </p>
<p>BUT here is the caveat. We had the financial resources to support these decisions. If we had NOT, our kids would have known that they needed to walk away from ANY school that didn’t meet our financial criteria. We would NOT have even tried to justify spending beyond our means. </p>
<p>But what if rather than an elite school, one of your kids had wanted to choose a very costly option that didn’t seem like a particularly good skill? That is, suppose you had kids who were not stellar students, but could qualify for admission to your state university – but instead wanted to attend more expensive private schools because of the location (such as, for example, a kid who wants to go to NYC and can’t get accepted to a school more selective than Pace University). Or what if one of your kids was choosing a costly but less selective college in order to be near their boyfriend or girlfriend. (My d’s boyfriend was attending a music conservatory in Boston – a school like Simmons would have been a total safety for her – if I had been rich enough to pay full cost without blinking an eye-- would it have made sense for me to allow her to turn down spots at Barnard, Chicago, Berkeley and NYU for the sake of a school whose primary attraction was that it was walking distance from the boyfriend’s dorm?)</p>
<p>Sometimes the cost-benefit analysis is so easy and obvious that we don’t have to do much thinking at all. If you have the money and your kid gets into Harvard, you are unlikely to want to be browsing merit aid threads on CC. But sometimes parents and kids don’t see eye-to-eye on the “benefit” end of the equation. </p>
<p>Calmom, you are describing our DD. She graduated from Santa Clara University…a costly private U. She got a $6000 a year scholarship, plus an additional $750 to play in their orchestra each year. Her first three years in college, we had two kids in college…her EFC was $22,000 a year or so. </p>
<p>She absolutely could have been accepted to our state flagship where her costs would have been about $20,000 a year. Or she could have gone to the OOS flagship where she received a HUGE scholarship and our costs would have been under $10,000 a year. </p>
<p>Santa Clara is a terrific school. But I’m sure most would agree, it’s not HYPSM or similar. I’m guessing most don’t view it as elite. Cost when she attended was about the same as MIT. </p>
<p>Oh, and she was an engineering major so she could have gone to ANY ABET accredited college.</p>
<p>But she chose Santa Clara, and you know…it was a great choice for her. Yes she loved the fabulous weather, beautiful campus, and that area of CA. But she also got a great education, and opportunities that she really took advantage of.</p>
<p>But really…I never felt a reason to “justify” our family decision to pay mor and send her there. It was our decision…as a family. </p>
<p>Again --I am not asking anyone to “justify” (in the sense of “defend”) their decision and I don’t think that was the OP’s intent either. I simply said that I would expect that the parent footing the bill would go through some sort of cost/benefit analysis - for themselves – not to justify a decision to others.</p>
<p>Maybe in your own mental hierarchy, the “benefit” of your daughter’s happiness is far more important than the prestige associated with the university. Maybe to another family, the fact that Santa Clara is a Catholic university would have been a huge plus factor. And perhaps to a family living in northern California, geographic proximity would have trumped all considerations. (Try plugging in the name of a school that is outside the geographic limitations that you set – for example, Grinnell (assuming that you don’t have relatives in Iowa) – and see how your personal cost/benefit analysis would have come out. Grinnell is a wonderful college-- but if it was more than an hour’s drive away from any relative or friend, based on information that you have already posted, it is likely that you would have decided that the benefits of the school did not outweigh the costs – in your case, the “cost” being the potential inconvenience of its rural location, as opposed to a monetary factor).</p>
<p>Like most families (I hope), my husband and I reviewed our finances. Then we set our one criteria…which was the geographic one. Our kids both then set THEIR criteria for colleges…in our DD’s case criteria were…in this order…strong sciences, ability to okay in the orchestra at the college and take private instrument lessons without being a music major, and a pleasing climate. We had no issues with her criteria, including the climate one. She had to live there for four years…and liking the climate was fine.</p>
<p>I don’t really know what the OP really wanted to know…has he/she been back to clarify?</p>
<p>@Flossy – that’s why I chose Pace as an example. A lot of people DO make that decision - the school has many students who are full pay, and probably many more who are taking out large loans – but the point is, there is a decision to be made. </p>
<p>Just as there is a decision to be made when a person buys a Lexus or a Mazerati or a Berkin bag. </p>
<p>Obviously, different people would make different decisions. </p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean that all but the mega-rich are going to engage in some sort of cost/benefit analysis. And most people don’t get to be mega- rich by being careless about where they spend their money. </p>
<p>Pace is an accredited university – it could very well be the best option for a student with weaker stats – but the point is, most expensive doesn’t always equate with best, or even with best fit. </p>
<p>Thumper, that’s fine – but what you call “criteria” is what I call factors in a cost/benefit analysis. Geographical location, science program, college orchestra, pleasing climate are all part of the benefits you and your daughter considered and were willing to pay for. </p>
<p>Science program and college orchestra are benefits that would have been totally irrelevant to my daughter - who does not play an instrument and is not interested in studying science. On the other hand, location in or near NYC represented a HUGE benefit for her – enough to make Fordham seem to be an attractive option even though she would never have even considered Santa Clara (which academically is probably very similar to Fordham, as both are well-regarded Jesuit colleges)</p>
<p>This is really important and needs to be drilled into the heads of parents and students who go around repeating that received wisdom about how going to Harvard will be worth it because of the connections they’ll make, or because just sitting next to the next Neil Degrasse Tyson in physics class, or the next Mark Zuckerberg in computer science class, will somehow shed a radiant glow over them so that their college experience will be much more amazing than it would have been at a state university. Well, I hobnobbed with a couple of future Tony award winners and a future Pulitzer Prize winner in college, and their genius did not noticeably affect anyone around them. Nor have I felt anything more than a mild interest at finding out about their accomplishments. “Huh, how about that,” about sums it up. </p>
<p>When my daughter received the glossy mailer from my alma mater in the mail, and I saw the page where all the famous alumni were touted, it just made me laugh, because gee, they forgot to add “and also dustypig, a suburban mom of two who works at XYZ.” When you see those lists of famous alumni, don’t forget to also envision the much larger ranks of completely obscure alumni from that same school.</p>
<p>None of this is to say that an elite school can’t offer a great college experience, or that the level of discussion in a seminar at such a school might be more stimulating than at a third-tier school. But in the end, you get out of college what you put into it, not what you absorb from the other students. You can be the only one in your 19th century British Literature seminar who’s actually interested in discussing the feminist themes in Jane Eyre, and still have a great discussion with your professor.</p>
<p>Cal mom, I think maybe some of are saying that if you have plenty of money, you may compare benefits, but not costs so much. So you might not want your kid to follow his girlfriend to a poorly fitting school, but it wouldn’t be because of the cost.</p>
<p>DIdn’t your son start out at a very expensive NY school (one of the most expensive privates in the US), Calmom? Did they offer a large scholarship to make it affordable? I don’t believe they offer any merit awards, so how was it affordable? They do offer some grand/gift money and work study, but was it enough to not be saddled with big loans to repay. Was this part of the cost/benefit analysis? </p>
<p>jym626, I posted about my experience with my son on page 2 of this thread (May 13) – but my son’s first college met full need (as they define it, of course – but they offered a substantially larger grant than any other comparable private college, and it came fairly close to meeting our FAFSA EFC. Additionally, my son had a National Merit award, which was added to the the school’s grant award. I don’t remember exact figures, but I think it cost a little under $20K for the private college, and the cost for UC Berkeley (which only offered about $300 of grant aid) would have been around $15K – so not a huge differential. And yes, I did take a PLUS loan for about half the cost. </p>
<p>And of course there was a cost/benefit analysis. My son strongly wanted to attend a small LAC and applied to half a dozen LAC’s. His top choice was a west coast LAC, but they did not offer any aid beyond federal loans, so he could not attend. Another west coast LAC offered some aid, but no where near enough – a midwest LAC offered enough to make the college barely affordable, and the east coast LAC was much more generous than the others. I made a nice little bar chart with excel and the bar for “grant” aid looked like a skyscraper net to all he other little stubbly awards. One other west coast college offered enough aid to bring the out-of-pocket cost below that of UC Berkeley, but that included a large Perkins loan on top of the Stafford - so basically it would have been more debt for him to attend a less selective LAC.</p>
<p>My son did not apply to any large private colleges or universities because he didn’t feel that it was worth paying private tuition for a larger school, when he could attend a UC with in-state tuition. So that was his cost/benefit opinion that came into play ahead of even applying – the value we were looking for and willing to pay somewhat more for was an environment with a high faculty/student ratio, small classes, and undergraduate-centered education. </p>
<p>SOOO many people believe this. It astonishes me. Especially when they themselves are successful with their degrees from Rutgers or UW-Eau Claire or Bradley or St. Mary’s.</p>