Inside Higher Ed: "What’s the great benefit that elite institutions provide?"

Parents Forum
21

<p>As I read this thread, and the NYT article posted as well, I keep wondering, </p>

<p>What is the profile of the child/family who attends, AT FULL PRICE, the third-tier LAC's such as Ursinus, McDaniel, Susquehanna, and so on throughout Pennsylvania especially, at a price of $35000+? </p>

<p>I have always understood the sacrifice for HYPS, and the second-tier institutions. But even though I looked at the colleges I named for my eldest, and probably will again for my youngest, I'm having trouble justifying the price.</p>

22

<p>That's simple. Ursinus has a higher rate of med school admissions (based on the number of students who going in thinking they are premed) than any of the Ivies. </p>

<p>(But I couldn't justify the price at Ursinus OR the Ivies, but then I don't have it to spend, so it is a non-issue.)</p>

23

<p>Barrons:</p>

<p>I'd better read the article since the posts concerning what the article discusses seem to be inaccurate.</p>

<p>But offhand, I would say that the growth of non-tenure track appointments may well be the result of too many tenured faculty who show no signs of wanting to retire. Granted, some are very dynamic well into their 70s, but some hang on for lack of alternatives, financial disincentives, etc... Finding a way to get more old-timers to retire would probably free up slots for tenure track appointments.</p>

24

<p>marite and mini, the problem with your arguments is that the colleges in question sell themselves to prospective students and one of their main selling points is their world class faculties. What would families think if they then admitted that only half of their classes were taught by their faculty and that the others were taught by adjunct faculty? But they never mention this during their info session do they? Hummmmmmm...? I wonder why?</p>

<p>Adjuncts are not necessarily bad but they are often an unknown quantity for students enrolling in their classes. In the arts, adjuncts can be terrific instructors, giving their students what amount to Master classes for an entire semester! Teaching a language, I'm on board with that. But other subject matter can potentially be problematic.</p>

<p>In my son's computer science department there are only 3 courses regularly taught by adjuncts. Two are 2 credit courses which do not count towards the degree in Java and Perl programming languages, in the same category as learning a foreign language. The third is a project based course called Software Design and Documentation where each team of students is required to develop a major software application from conception to final completion, presentation and demonstration. My son's team actually taught themselves a new programming language(Ruby) and web application framework(RoR) to implement their software application. It is entrepreneurial in nature and the course instructor is in the classroom more as a critiquer/client/division manager than as a teacher, an appropriate use for an adjunct it seems. All others are taught by tenured faculty and I am happy about that.</p>

<p>Mini, you comment about Daschle is interesting but illustrates the uncertainty associated with adjuncts. If he was merely there to offer anecdotal stories about his years in politics, it may be interesting but perhaps not to useful from an academic perspective. If, on the otherhand, he was able to talk about his experiences both anecdotally, analytically and in some historical perspective, well sign me up!!</p>

25

<p><a href="But%20I%20couldn't%20justify%20the%20price%20at%20Ursinus%20OR%20the%20Ivies,%20but%20then%20I%20don't%20have%20it%20to%20spend,%20so%20it%20is%20a%20non-issue.">quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lets' try-- shall we?-- to compare apples and apples, or more specifically stricker prices with sticker prices rather than discounted prices at one college and full price at others.</p>

<p>Smith College:</p>

<p>Tuition: $32,320
Room and Board: $10,880
Student Activities Fee: $238</p>

<p>Subtotal: $43,438</p>

<p>Harvard University (stand in for "Ivies")</p>

<p>COST OF ATTENDANCE for 2006-07</p>

<p>Tuition </p>

<p>$30,275</p>

<p>Health Services Fee </p>

<p>$1,390</p>

<p>Student Services Fee </p>

<p>$2,044</p>

<p>Room </p>

<p>$5,328</p>

<p>Board</p>

<p>$4,618</p>

<p>Subtotal - billed costs </p>

<p>$43,655</p>

<p>So Smith is cheaper than Harvard by a grand total of.... $417. </p>

<p>I think that's the comparison that needs to be made in this particular context.</p>

26

<p>Originaloog:</p>

<p>I don't know about others, but we've always known that language instructors are preceptors, that assistant profs of math are on 3-year contract. I was a grad student and appreciated being taught by someone who was a native speaker. She was a preceptor and she was terrific.</p>

27

<p>Jaybee, close friends of ours whom we have known since our oldest kids, now grown, were little, always were diehard supporters of the state systems. Both husband and wife graduated from large state schools, loved their experiences, did well and ended up in careers they loved that were well supported by their education. And little or no debt. Yes, they saw absolutely no reason for spending $40K+ a year for college. </p>

<p>As their oldest neared high school grad, they began to hedge, as she was an excellent student and the HPY et al talk was filling the air. Would they really turn down such a school for State U or prohibit their wonderful, talented, motivated daughter from applying to top schools do the price? Were these high priced schools worth the price? Well, in the end she did apply, she did get in, and they paid for it. A bit chagrined and embarrassed since they had made their position so clear when the kids were little. And though they could afford it, they felt it plenty; they weren't that rich. And it did put them more behind the financial 8 ball with two more to send to school.<br>
S2 was all for State U. But State U requirements are not so easy these days. He was not auto admit--right on the border where he could just as easily be rejected. The other state schools were nothing like StateU. Primarily commuter schools without much in the way of liberal arts, not much campus activity, low % kids in the dorms, stats of kids way further below, and 6 year grad stats abysmal. Not what they wanted for their son. So they looked at OOS schools instead which were a bit more like State U and not as expensive as daughter's choice. As it turned out, son was accepted to State U. So they were able to breathe out.</p>

<p>Well, Kid 3 was definitely not State U material, and his survival at the other state schools was very questionable. The best choice for him was clearly a small LAC that would "look" after him, have a campus life, and profs teaching small classes. The $45k school, in other words. And he was not gonna get into a top LAC, nor was he likely to get anything in the merit area. They did not have trouble justifying the price for him, as they found some good matches for him. They were just grateful that they could afford that choice, though, again they will feel it.</p>

28

<p>The article is in the pay portion of the COHE site. I am SURE many schools will be discussing the report and what it said about them in particular.</p>

<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i17/17a00801.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i17/17a00801.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

29

<p>"So Smith is cheaper than Harvard by a grand total of.... $417.</p>

<p>I think that's the comparison that needs to be made in this particular context."</p>

<p>It's all price fixing. We know that the cost structure of Smith is very different from that of Harvard and the chances that the cost structure would reflect a cost differential of less than 1% is obviously absurd.</p>

<p>The president of Williams came right out and said it. Prices are tied to what the richest families (50% of the student body) will pay. Prices rise at the rate of the asset/income increases of this 3% of the population. Since Williams (for example) already gives a $24k per year "scholarship" (subsidy) to its wealthiest millionaire students, what they charge is much lower than the market will bear. Hence, prices will continue to increase. Hey, it makes them look more generous if a higher percentage of the student body is receiving need-based aid (the Princeton strategy), especially when that aid is more than paid back in price increases.</p>

<p>Again, list prices are irrelevant to me - we wouldn't have even half of $45k to pay to Ursinus, or to Harvard, so what do I care?</p>

30

<p>YOU don't have to care. But other families who do not qualify for financial aid or whose kids have the stats to receive merit aid must care about sticker price. If I understand correctly, not ALL Smith Collge students are on financial aid, right? So they pay $417 less than if they attended HYP? Grand savings! Wow!</p>

31

<p>Originaloog:</p>

<p>I agree with the value of adjuncts in some departments and not in others. It would be interesting to do a study. I could--when I have the time--try to figure out where the adjuncts are at Harvard by going systematically through the online catalog. I would suspect that they are where you think they would do the greatest good: in language departments, in performing and plastic arts departments, in the creative writing program and one or two others. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, some administrative staff must teach a course as part of their job description so would fall under the rubric of adjuncts.</p>

<p>The people who are unknown quantities are visiting profs rather than regular adjuncts. What's more they don't stay long enough to build a base of interest or supervise theses. Still, my older S took a course with a visiting prof at his LAC and really liked the course and the prof.</p>

32

<p>Marite is sooo right, Mini. You have a remarkable daughter who was highly desirable to Smith. Enough so that she got the grand merit prize there, and I'm sure they strrrretched that financial aid package to get her. And she deserves every cent they gave her from the feedback we are getting. She is soaking up everything Smith has to offer. But my feeling is that short of locking her in a closet and beating her everyday, she would have done fine where ever she ended up. Some, not many, kids are that way. </p>

<p>Others can thrive but are more vulnerable for challenges and would statistically do far better, be far happier, learn more at a small school like Smith but do not have the academic profile to get into a school of that calibre. Ursinus might be a good pick for such a student. I know a couple who are Ursinus grads, and unlike most ivy league grads, they started college as B-C students and not so hot gpas. They were not the intellectually stimulated, love of learning kids. They needed a place to grow for a few years, learning some academics, culture, and all the other things, bad and good that you learn from being away from home. One was not a stand out at Ursinus either, but he is now in a job he loves, does well in it and earns enough money to live well in Manhattan with a second home in Europe. Wife, also a Ursinus grad is an editor for a great magazine, a dream job, now on sabbatical with two little ones, enjoying being a stay home mom, and writing on the side. Very happy people who are enjoying their lives. They got a lot of mileage out of whatever their parents paid for URsinus. Would they have done as well at State U? The hubby would have likely flunked out as he had issues that a small school like Ursinus was able to resolve, that would not have been addressed at a large uni. So he was very lucky to have parents who could afford Ursinus. We would love to send our son to a school like that. BUt the cost is more than we should be paying, given some issues we are facing. We do no qualify for financial aid, and I agree with the assessment. We need to make some hard decisions, and it is going to difficult for us. If we find some way to cut the sticker price and find a good fit college, we will go that route. </p>

<p>So, no, Mini, what do you care? You daughter has the stats to get into top schools, got into a top school and is getting a very rich package that very, very few kids get. Going to a small, nurturing college with rich educational opportunities for a song. (literally, from what I understand some of her activities are!) What if you had one that you felt would thrive in such an environment, but wasn't going to get the deal your first daughter is getting. It becomes more relevant getting the half to pay Ursinus than to pay Harvard, since H would be a foregone conclusion for admissions, but Ursinus might well be a great fit for such a student. Therein lies the problem with these sticker prices. </p>

<p>So who is paying these sticker prices for schools that are not HPY? Well, many who have the money, but whose kids cannot get into HPY but are great matches for school like Ursinus. THat have profiles where it looks like a good match. And those who have to borrow and scrape to send their kids there, because it is by far the best choice for the kid. He may not have gotten into Penn STate main campus, and a look at the satellite schools may show a scene where the likelihood of making it through the first few years is unlikely, given the student's academic and maturity profile. Not interested in teaching, business or criminal justice--a good liberal arts education probably the best bet. And you want a strong school community, not a suitcase school. So these parents sacrifice to put together a package if they do not qualify for financial aid or are given an inadequate package. Those who are truly needy, and do not get enough to go, just don't. Community college for them, and hopefully the experience is such there that they want to go on to school.</p>

33

<p>There is a big problem in the U.S., but it isn't at the top 100 private colleges (they have their own problems). The problem is that many of the flagship universities are either becoming unaffordable or, alternatively, people believe there is a tradeoff between prices and quality. For those at a below the median income ($52k), this is becoming a bigger problem all the time. </p>

<p>The private colleges have NOT become more unaffordable. On the contrary, for list-price payers, they are slightly cheaper (relative to income/assets) than they were 25 years ago. The "problem" (if there is one) is that many folks who are not in the top 3% of income "lust" after objects/services that have always been much more available or even reserved for those with top 3% incomes. It is true that many of these colleges are less economically diverse than they were 25 years ago, but that is mostly a function of the rich having become richer. For those lucky enough to get in (like my d.), financial aid is generally more available than it was 25 years ago.</p>

<p>My own opinion is that list prices at the small number of prestige colleges we are talking about are MUCH too low. The market clearly indicates that this is the case. As list prices rise, the number of applications has risen with them. Meanwhile, my measley alumni contribution provides a $98k (over four years) subsidy to those who least need it. If list prices rose more quickly, there would be much more money available for financial assistance for those who need it (including those who are in the top 5% rather than the top 3% in income - this essentially is the Princeton strategy.) </p>

<p>Meanwhile, one of the side benefits of prices being too low (and hence there being too many applicants) is the quality of education and of students at the non-HYP-type schools has soared. Ursinus has a better record of sending entering premeds off to med school than most of the Ivies. The quality of faculty and of facilities is no longer that different among these institutions. And because there are only a limited number of faculty hires at the elite institutions, the same faculty that might in former times have been teaching at a Williams or a Smith are now teaching at Franklin & Marshall, or Evergreen State College. </p>

<p>There are indeed great benefits to attending a bunch of very fine elite institutions. I attended one; my d. attends one. But I think it is very easy to overstate those benefits. And to the vast majority of us, they are irrelevant: if the funds weren't there, my d. wouldn't be attending one, no matter how fine. Makes no sense to lust after something that is simply beyond reach. I love looking at Picassos; but I have to settle for cheap copies of the lithographs. Hey, I don't have to pay for their insurance, either.</p>

<p>"What if you had one that you felt would thrive in such an environment, but wasn't going to get the deal your first daughter is getting?"</p>

<p>We would choose the next best available option, and, from experience (she took classes at Evergreen, and her mentors were at Pacific Lutheran and University of Oregon) I know that those options were/are pretty darn good. For my other d., who requires a gymnastics team, program in international accounting, Arabic, and location in a major city, virtually all the so-called elite schools are decidedly inferior.</p>

34

<p>I realized that I never addressed the original question. In my personal experience (and I've spoken about this before), by far the greatest benefit that my elite institution provided me was the experience of being around really wealthy people. I discovered that, in the main, they weren't more intelligent than those in my NYC magnet school, but their visions of the world, the possibilities open to them, and their way of navigating wthin it were quite foreign, and eye-opening for me, and from them I learned heaps! I can't honestly say that it was a comfortable form of learning (but then I am not sure that any real long-lasting learning happens when one stays in one's comfort zone), but a learning that provided me with lifelong benefits far beyond anything that was actually taught in the classroom (most of which is long forgotten.) This kind of learning would not have been available to me in a non-elite institution. And for that opportunity I remain very grateful.</p>

35

<p>Not only being around very wealthy people, but living in a college community, whether the kids are wealthy or not, is a valuable experience. For many kids, going away to a good residential college can make a big difference in whether or not he is going to continue his education. </p>

<p>Also, though private college are giving more financial aid, if you look at the less selective ones, they rarely give 100% of need type packages and the make up of the packages are not anywhere nearly as generous as the top schools. Also there is often a lot of merit in aid involved. A student like your Smithie would undoubtedly get a rich package from Ursinus or like. A B- student with SAT scores hovering at the midpoint of such colleges would not. And if he is in that vast category where the numbers that the financial aid process yields does not match the family budget, he is still going to be short. THat merit piece that your D got is "golden". And remember, she is the sort that would do just fine at a large school like U of Oregon, and would probably get money from private schools like Evergreen and PL, had she gone that route. Evergreen is a good possibility for kids like my son (unless they raised the tuition from what I remember-have not looked it up), but PL is pretty pricey--would you be able to pay their costs if your D got a not so generous need only package from them, which is the situation for more kids than not. I'm sure your daughter is a go getter who would continue to use all local resources well, and living at home would still expand her horizons, but a kid who needs a nurturing college to provide that environment to bring him one step closer to being a college grade, is not going to be pursuing these things. They need it laid out for them, which small residential colleges tend to do--that is the value of their expensive price tags. A valuable service for many. A kid who would be unlikely to get into med school going to State U or non flagship Eastern State would have a shot at it going to a school like Ursinus. Heck, some of the kids going to Johns Hopkins, CMU, Chicago and Cornell would be giving themselves a better chance going to a Ursinus type premed program. So if those Big Boys are "worth" that price tage, so are the little fellows, maybe even more, since these smaller schools with smaller endowments and annual funds need the tuition money more. It isn't going to kill Harvard to have to pay out a bunch more scholarships, it can put a small school into a financial bind.</p>

36

<p>Not only being around very wealthy people, but living in a college community, whether the kids are wealthy or not, is a valuable experience. For many kids, going away to a good residential college can make a big difference in whether or not he is going to continue his education. </p>

<p>Also, though private college are giving more financial aid, if you look at the less selective ones, they rarely give 100% of need type packages and the make up of the packages are not anywhere nearly as generous as the top schools. Also there is often a lot of merit in aid involved. A student like your Smithie would undoubtedly get a rich package from Ursinus or like. A B- student with SAT scores hovering at the midpoint of such colleges would not. And if he is in that vast category where the numbers that the financial aid process yields does not match the family budget, he is still going to be short. THat merit piece that your D got is "golden". And remember, she is the sort that would do just fine at a large school like U of Oregon, and would probably get money from private schools like Evergreen and PL, had she gone that route. Evergreen is a good possibility for kids like my son (unless they raised the tuition from what I remember-have not looked it up), but PL is pretty pricey--would you be able to pay their costs if your D got a not so generous need only package from them, which is the situation for more kids than not. I'm sure your daughter is a go getter who would continue to use all local resources well, and living at home would still expand her horizons, but a kid who needs a nurturing college to provide that environment to bring him one step closer to being a college grade, is not going to be pursuing these things. They need it laid out for them, which small residential colleges tend to do--that is the value of their expensive price tags. A valuable service for many. A kid who would be unlikely to get into med school going to State U or non flagship Eastern State would have a shot at it going to a school like Ursinus. Heck, some of the kids going to Johns Hopkins, CMU, Chicago and Cornell would be giving themselves a better chance going to a Ursinus type premed program. So if those Big Boys are "worth" that price tage, so are the little fellows, maybe even more, since these smaller schools with smaller endowments and annual funds need the tuition money more. It isn't going to kill Harvard to have to pay out a bunch more scholarships, it can put a small school into a financial bind.</p>

37

<p>Regarding to the number of adjunct professors at Harvard. The number is greatly inflated by the medical school. Since almost every physician holds an adjunct faculty status. Very rarely do they even participate in teaching medical students. what the adjunct status does is to give these people the opportunity to apply for research grant and the prestige to be outside consultants.</p>

38

<p>I am pretty certain med school was not included.</p>

39

<p>A rather unscientific analysis:</p>

<p>I looked at the list of tenured and tenure-track faculty in two very different departments of Harvard, one that offers many different languages and one that is a social sciences dept.</p>

<p>I did not count the large number of visiting profs, but included faculty who are listed as being on leave.</p>

<p>dept. 1: 45 total, 19 preceptors or lecturers (non-tenure track, but on 8 year appointments, renewable).</p>

<p>dept. 2: 55 total, 5 lecturers (non-tenure track).</p>

<p>So out of a total of 100 faculty, 24 are non-tenure-track, but none are adjuncts.</p>

40

<p>You don't have to manually count to find out the percent of tenured faculty at a school. Perhaps this article from the Daily Princetonian will help.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/12/14/news/16998.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/12/14/news/16998.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>