<p>Oh, clearly every college in the country is still pretty much drawing from its own local region at disproportionate levels. Bclintonk and I worked through the numbers for the top 20 unis and top 20 LAC’s.</p>
<p>For example, put into index terms (index relative to % of the pop in that region), of my kids’ schools:</p>
<p>School – Index Northeast / Midwest / Southeast / West</p>
<p>S’s school - 107/225/42/54 (school located in midwest)
D’s school - 213/70/41/98 (school located in northeast) </p>
<p>In other words, both of their schools pull twice as much from their home region as one would expect based on the size of the US population in that region. Practically all the top 20 schools have similar patterns, though. And to forestall the inevitable - the Ivies are no different, they all overindex in the 200’s to the northeast. There is no school that is truly nationally representative. </p>
<p>Meeting full need is need as defined by the universities, not as defined by real life needs as felt by a family. For example, our “need” requires about a $25000/yr (+/- $5000 depending on school) EFC. That is significantly less than the COA, but $100,000 is a long way from $0. </p>
<p>Research opportunities for undergrads exist outside of the top elite schools. Actually, schools without grad programs open up opportunities for UGs that are normally filled by grad students. The local “directional” university where ds dual enrolled recruited him heavily to complete his UG there. The types of published research opportunities they offered him could not be equaled at most universities with grad schools. When ds spoke with the dean at one of the top schools where he was accepted, the dean came right out and told ds that those type of research positions are filled by grad students at their school and that undergrads assisted the grad students. Ds made the decision not to attend the local university but the decision mainly came down to the fact that he has already completed their physics and math offerings through 1st semester jr sequence for physics majors and would have had to take multiple semesters of independent study. Even though he won’t be attending there in the fall, he will be working with a professor this summer doing soft condensed matter physics utilizing graphene to cause gases to condense (before he is even a college freshman). Having professors who are actively involved in top research advocating for you is not something to be easily dismissed. Being a top student who stands out and is enthusiastic about getting involved does lead to professors inviting them to join their projects. And in today’s research, teams are made up of researchers from all over the world who work collaboratively on research. It isn’t as if great research is limited to single locations (at least in physics).</p>
<p>Ds has worked with lots of physicists and all of them have assured him that where he completes his undergrad is not as important as GPA, undergrad research, and GRE scores. He has attended “selective” physics summer programs like SSP with top physicists, so this isn’t just random, easily dismissible advice. They are physicists who are at top universities and are fully aware of the caliber student ds is.</p>
<p>Non-select universities do have opportunities and are not snubbed by top grad schools, employers, and prestigious awards. If these schools were so easily dismissed, they would not have have students that were Hollings, Goldwater, Mitchell,Truman, and Rhodes Scholars or UG students accepted into top grad programs. </p>
<p>Honors programs at non-select universities are a great opportunity for students that can’t afford a more expensive route. Many of the honors programs open up doors that are not as easily accessible to the avg student at those institutions. </p>
<p>Well, this is going to come off snotty and I don’t mean it to (honest), but going to an elite school may (operative word - may; I’m not saying guarantee) better your chances of being in the positions that Hunt, oldfort and I were in in the first place where we had a lot more latitude for saying to our kids - go where you want to go and don’t fret too much about the money. </p>
Except for the service academies. I think they should be mentioned occasionally in conversations like this. My observation is that people who attend them also tend to be pretty successful in life.</p>
<p>I have colleagues that went to Stanford and colleagues that went to their state flagship. The Stanford dude is my peer, the State U dude is my boss…</p>
<p>@GoldenState2015 I give you credit for doing your homework in advance about this question-as you can see it is a very emotional subject so I hope you can wade through the adults discussing it and find something useful.</p>
<p>Have you had this talk with your parents? I think the most important thing you can do is know what they can contribute-as soon as possible. It will help your search a lot.</p>
<p>If money is a factor now is the time to find out-not later when the decisions are in and perhaps you can’t afford to go where you would like-because for many families that is the most important factor in where they send their children to school-because most people do have budgets. </p>
Blossom beat me to it. Maybe your son will get a PhD in his current area of interest. But maybe he will change his major or decide against it. These are kids talking about lifelong decisions, and they often change their minds.</p>
<p>Agreed. No one knows for sure that their kids will go to grad school. Likewise, no one knows for sure that they won’t. Sometimes all it takes is one great professor to open a student’s eyes to a new academic/career direction he or she hadn’t known of when making college plans as a high school junior or senior.</p>
<p>Hunt, not really a sour grapes situation. Even if I can afford a Lexus (I can) I buy the Toyota because it is a better VALUE. I don’t yearn for the Lexus anyway and for people who want to be noticed it would be a good thing, but for me…I’d rather blend in. Most of the time I feel sorry for people who feel the need to buy the more expensive item.</p>
<p>Your choices teach your kids things. Do you value fiscal responsibility or do you value egoism? I live the same way I hope to teach my kids. We don’t buy trendy brands unless they are a better value. Cheaper is not always the best option, but you have to make comparison. If I were choosing between a Lexus and a Pinto, I would always by the Lexus because at any price it is a better value. (Pinto’s had a penchant for fires and other safety issues for those who are not old enough to get the reference) Comparing name brand foods and generics, it really depends upon the specifics. Sometimes, the store-brand or the generic is every bit as good as the name brand. Other times, the name brand produces a better product. If you are only buying the name brand because you worry about what someone else would think if they saw it in your fridge, I pity you.</p>
<p>When I see comments saying kids want to be in a school where EVERYONE is top notch, I see people reaching for ways to justify egoism by deflecting it to something that has less value than some would give it. Sure, if you are in a class with all smart kids, the discussions can be more stimulating, but those classes are available at less expensive schools, too.</p>
<p>If a high school senior had your strong preference for a thick concentration of comparably smart students, how would you suggest that s/he choose safety school(s) for his/her application list? In most cases, an admissions safety would have mostly students with significantly lower academic credentials than the student in question.</p>
<p>Of course, the undergraduate school needs to have a suitable physics department and major. Some smaller schools have physics departments so small that they are unable to reliably offer all of the typical junior/senior level core physics major courses frequently enough so that every physics major will have a chance to take them.</p>
<p>“When I see comments saying kids want to be in a school where EVERYONE is top notch, I see people reaching for ways to justify egoism by deflecting it to something that has less value than some would give it. Sure, if you are in a class with all smart kids, the discussions can be more stimulating, but those classes are available at less expensive schools, too.”|</p>
<p>How is that “egoism”? All over CC, students / parents talk about what they value - maybe it’s city experience vs country experience, Greek life vs not, big-name sports vs not, dorm living vs apartment living, presence of cultural events, blah blah blah - but all of a sudden when it’s “thick” presence of top-notch students, it’s “egotistic” to want? Good lord, to me that’s one of THE key criteria in a school - “thick” presence of top-notch students and “thin” presence of less serious / less motivated students. Otherwise, it’s called high school, with a thin presence of top-notch students and thick presence of less serious / less motivated ones – and no thanks, been there done that.</p>
<p>" If a high school senior had your strong preference for a thick concentration of comparably smart students, how would you suggest that s/he choose safety school(s) for his/her application list? In most cases, an admissions safety would have mostly students with significantly lower academic credentials than the student in question. "</p>
<p>You’ve made this point to me numerous times, ucb. I don’t know. I guess it would have to have been a compromise.</p>
<p>Obviously students want to ensure the program is dedicated to its students. However, there are numerous programs out there where courses are only offered in single semester sequences. That is not at all unusual. My dh and our oldest ds are both graduates of different engineering schools which both only offered specific classes as fall only, spring only classes. </p>
<p>Torveaux, go tell a kid who is majoring in Classics that he/she will have the same experience at University of New Hampshire as he or she will have at U Chicago. This isn’t a prestige issue- a kid can have a fantastic experience at U Mich or Berkeley- both public institutions. But I would wager that a Classics major at U New Hampshire would end up with an experience quite inferior- not just different, but actually inferior, to that of a kid at an institution with the “right stuff”. It’s not narcissism- it’s that at some institutions, investing in a particular discipline has been part of a strategic plan, so you’ve got a concentration of faculty, undergrads, grad students, fellowship opportunities, field work in relevant parts of the world, visiting scholars, etc.</p>
<p>Classroom discussion aside (I personally think it’s important, but then I’ve already been to college) the facilities, faculty, and other resources are not comparable from place to place.</p>
<p>Does it matter for the kid majoring in Beer Pong or “Going to parties and taking selfies”? Of course not. But major in Renaissance Studies at a college with no faculty teaching Italian? Or limited faculty teaching Art History, and most of them concentrating on Asian or Contemporary art? Or a kid who wants to study nano-technology at a university which hasn’t upgraded its labs since the 1980’s? Or study music at a college which has no actual faculty who are working/performing apart from their academic responsibilities? Or study theater/performance at an institution which does not have showcase opportunities for its students to meet producers and directors and playwrights?</p>
<p>You are very naive if you think the differences are all status and branding.</p>
<p>You can say the same thing about HS and undergrad. Once you get into Reach U, it doesn’t matter if you went to Andover or Andy Over HS in the Ozarks.</p>
<p>That research is flawed if it only was about opportunities at great grad schools.
If you only look at the previous education as a check box for the next degree you are missing the point that it is about building a foundation off of which you build your grad degree and career. </p>
<p>I went to a great grad school with people who went UG at MIT. They were far and away better prepared than the other grad students which opened them up to a wider range of research and opportunities. </p>
<p>(yes, yes, I know there is an example of the person from Podunk U who got into a great grad school and cured cancer).</p>
This is a very good question. I think the best answer is to look for state universities with robust honors colleges. They are not all the same, so you need to look at the specifics. The growth of the honors college is a sign that these universities are trying to attract the kind of student you are describing–the cost-conscious highly qualified student.</p>
<p>Another thought is that you can look at the distribution of high-stats kids at different colleges. Thus (for example) if 10% of the students at a particular college have high-stats, that may not be great–unless it’s a really big university, in which case it translates into a large number of people.</p>
My older son’s safety (RPI) at the time my son applied middle SAT scores and GPA were not that much lower than more selective institutions - it just was less selective because most kids want the bigger names, the better M/F ratios and nicer towns than Troy. He applied via an EA program for selected students and knew he was in before Thanksgiving. My younger son chose a college with an honors program and easy access to DC internships that he hoped would make up for the possibly less thick with top students student body. It was still somewhat selective, but not as selective as his reaches. He also applied EA and got into the reachiest college he applied to that way. </p>
<p>Safeties by definition are generally not going to have everything you want. Thickness of high stat kids may be one of them, but finding a college with a critical mass of high stat kids is not that hard - almost any flagship will give you that. Then you can dig deeper and see if they have honors housing, majors that attract the more serious students or other special things that make them desirable.</p>
<p>I just spoke to my daughter and son-in-law yesterday about this. They went to WPI, she had significant financial aid, he had some merit aid. He is now in a doctoral program and the expectation is that they will be over $100,000 in debt by the time they graduate. They both have regrets, because this puts many things in their life on hold. They both have said to my younger daughter that she should definitely not take on too much debt.</p>
<p>I don’t think going to a less prestigious college is selling anyone short - there are honors programs and challenging courseloads/majors at most schools. I think we need to move away from the idea that the prestigious college is the only path to success, because it’s not. </p>
<p>As for the original question: “How did you justify paying for a reach vs. a financial safety? What factors did you consider and do you regret the decision now? This is assuming that your kid got into a great (location,academics,social life,sports the whole SHABAAM) but expensive school alongside an average but cheaper school. Had the difference in price been significant what would you have done?”</p>
<p>I am actually not a parent but a recent college graduate and incoming medical student. Four years ago, I posted on CollegeConfidential about a similar question, and here is my belated reflection on this difficult choice. My family went the other way, and chose the financial safety over the reach school. At the time, my parents felt the cost of the reach school was not justifiable. I am a science oriented student and in my experience our state university had excellent choices for top-notch research. I don’t regret my family’s decision; it turned out that the opportunities were there but at my state university I had to seek them out rather than being introduced to them as may have been the case at a private school. Also, I feel great being debt-free at the start of a rather expensive four years of professional school. I couldn’t imagine having the stress of accumulating interest on college loans in addition to the normal stresses of medical school.</p>
<p>Thinking back, the only things I can consider regrets are that perhaps private school offers better social life, location, and that elusive thing called “atmosphere”. For me, neither of these was particularly important (I mean I have a social life, but it’s more about close friends than clubs, Greek life, public forums, etc). The other possible justification for the “reach” school is that in my experience, entering the “elite private school” pathway in college makes it easier to continue down it later on in terms of graduate/professional school. I ended up choosing to continue down the public school/“financial safety” pathway into my medical education, but felt I had the private school opportunities offered to me in college where comparatively shut away for me in medical school.</p>
<p>Basically, my opinion is that the only way to justify the reach school is if you highly value the prestige of your college. I don’t think there is any career pathway that you are barred from as a result of choosing the more affordable school. Also, I don’t mean this in a condescending way; I respect those who value prestige or the college experience. It can be personally rewarding, and I have met individuals who would spend an entire lifetime regretting the decision I made.</p>
<p>Perhaps as a parting shot to an already long post, I would like to say that college in the USA is heavily romanticized, and there is a certain uneasiness I feel when the financial aspect of education is discussed. Personally, I always took a practical view to education rather viewing it as a journey to self-discovery and believe that students should be more frank in discussing finances with their parents.</p>