<p>*..."Students think they're getting a pretty good deal here," he said. "I think they're in denial."</p>
<p>...College applicants are often surprised to discover that the state's public universities no longer are the most affordable options.</p>
<p>"That's what we've been told our entire lives, since we were kids." said Greg Washington, a Cal State Fullerton student and president of the California State Student Association.</p>
<p>..."Times have definitely changed," he said. "It kind of defeats the purpose of having a public university."*</p>
<p>Ahhhh, not very many CS students have that Harvard option. Or most other rich highly selective schools. Drivel that applies to very few. False choice.</p>
<p>Um, I don’t think anybody said that it was a choice that most people had. That’s not the thrust of the article.</p>
<p>The point of the article is to point out that public universities - which historically had been the cheaper option for instate students - may no longer be so. As expressed above, many students believed - because they were told as much throughout their whole lives - that they would save money by attending a state school.</p>
<p>If it is not a choice most have it is just another silly article pumping the rich schools over the poor publics. It has no real point for 98% of students at most publics.</p>
<p>For the great majority who cannot get into very generous schools like Harvard or Stanford or the military service academies, the in-state public universities and community colleges are likely to be among the less expensive options. Of course, some other schools are cheap or offer big scholarships for high-stats students, but many of those are public as well.</p>
<p>Agree with barrons. Besides, Ivy largesse for the middle class is a new phenomenon. </p>
<p>Until recently, when schools were forced to dramatically raise tuition due to decreasing state funding, the publics were without doubt the economical alternative. Only high achieving students can now, with merit aid, get a private education at or near the cost of a public.</p>
<p>But I still think it’s something that middle class families with top students might not realize and therefore, it’s good information for those families.</p>
<p>My oldest son is one to fall into that category and I’m really glad I knew about the generous f. aid at top schools.</p>
<p>My middle son will not be that student but that doesn’t matter; he will find a place that fits him just as my oldest is trying to do now and having the option of chosing a selective school because of the generous aid has been a huge blessing.</p>
<p>There aren’t many “middle class” families at Harvard (not that it matters much). When you take out the full-pays (roughly 50%) who are in the top 1%, the international students, and the Pell Grant students (poor), and those in the top 5% of income in the country (but who still receive some financial aid), the number is vanishingly small (and a relatively high percentage of those are athletes - why do you think Harvard sports teams are doing so well these days?)</p>
<p>Actually, I think the point of the article is just the opposite. It’s trying to send a message to the politicians to pump more money into the public options so they then become less expensive than HYPSM et al.</p>
<p>This actually isn’t anything new nor is it limited to the most elite schools. </p>
<p>In the '90s, plenty of HS classmates found respectable privates to be a better financial bargain than our local state/city universities when FA/scholarships were taken into account. </p>
<p>More recently, a mother of a younger friend mentioned how she was surprised at how it turned out to be much cheaper to send her youngest D to a respectable private university OOS than it was to attend the local state unis. The wide difference in academic reputation/rigor added further confirmation to her D’s ultimate choice. She ended up having a great academic experience and graduated in 2007 with practically no debt…which wouldn’t have been the case had she stayed to attend the local state unis.</p>
Very true. Even at these prices, in-state options are likely to be among the best financial options for most middle-class families.</p>
<p>
Full-pays are pretty much the top 5% of earners. The income break points for the top 1% is something like $350k/year, top 5% something like $155k/year.</p>
<p>Well, then there are even FEWER middle class families. (the average Harvard full-pay is likely well over $350k/year.)</p>
<p>Roughly 50% of Americans are “middle income” - $40k-$80k a year. (above that one is already in the top quarter). You’ll find a tiny fraction of the Harvard student body in that cohort, and probably a majority of Cal State students in same.</p>
Perhaps this could be true for the mean, as there are certainly a few massively wealthy folks that could pull up the average substantially. But it’s certainly not true for the median. After all, the top 1% represents only a fifth of the top 5% - and that other 4% mostly consists of one or two educated people working daily jobs, exactly the demographic that tends to produce the strongest students.</p>
<p>The “strongest students” is all relative. Winston et al. proved almost a decade ago that there are 3-4X as many low-income students “qualified” for Ivies and other top schools than were actually being admitted/attending. </p>
<p>Last numbers I saw indicate that the top 3% begins at $165k. Fully more than half of H. students come from there, and some of them even receive financial aid. Again, add them together to Pell Grantees, and the international students, and there just aren’t many “middle class” students. And “middle income” students? Relatively, a tiny, tiny number (and many of them are recruited athletes.)</p>
<p>H and other schools populated by the top 3% have excellent PR departments.</p>
<p>This is nothing new – it was cheaper for DH to attend Penn than to go instate to SUNY-Binghamton in the late 70s.</p>
<p>Ran EFC calcs for my niece a couple of months ago, and even with stats that put her in the sweetest FA packaging (BU sweetens the package for top students), her EFC there was more than double that of Harvard’s. SIL thought it amazing that H was more affordable for her than BU.</p>
<p>Harvard could buy and sell BU tens times over if it wished. BU is not a rich school by any measure. They just charge some folks less and make it up with full-pay much like many state U’s.</p>
<p>There hasn’t been ANY loss in earned income among the top 3%. In fact, in the past year 93% of all income growth was in the top 1%, and about 98% of it in the top 3%.</p>
<p>But the point is it is easy to brag about being generous to so-called “middle-class” students when you hardly have any. As a percentage of assets, for the top 3%, full-pay costs at the so-called prestige privates is cheaper than at any time since 1980.</p>
<p>At my alma mater (“#1 LAC”), they figure the actual cost of attendance at $88k per student per year. Every millionaire and billionaire’s kid gets a $33k/year “subsidy”, the highest level of subsidy for the rich in the school’s history.</p>
<p>And remember that those UC students whose families earn less than $70 or $80,000 pay NO tuition. UC also gives the very best students Regents Scholarships that meet full need. Those Regents students are the ones who could go to the Ivies, if they chose to or could afford it.</p>