The car analogy works differently if you know in x years, you’ll need to add another. Then, maybe even the Mercedes doesn’t make full sense. I think that’s OP’s issue, budgeting for two.
@Veryapparent I can understand why that’s upsetting. I would never do that to my kids. I would have given the older kids enough to pay off loans or equivalent cash. Of course inflation costs are one thing, but private expensive school’s for 2 kids and loans to cheaper school’s for the rest is terrible.
Both of my kids went to full pay private schools and I think it was worth every penny I spent. I believe that you cant take it with you. I do believe that there is a huge difference between some of the top schools and other schools.
I think the OPs decision should be made by how much he makes and how much can he afford. I don’t think we know that .
If you can’t afford to send K1 full pay, then don’t let him apply. The rejection conversation will be easier now than after he’s been accepted. Nor should acceptance letters be seen as trophies, where kids apply to out of price range schools they have no intention of matriculating at. It seems like a terrible idea to allocate more college funds for K1 than K2. In the car analogy, buying K1 a new BMW and K2 a used Civic seems bound to create resentment and family conflict.
“I take it that you believe that it would have caused fewer issues if your parents had used some of the improved financial capabilities to help the older siblings pay off the student loans, rather than use all of it on the younger siblings?”
Honestly I am just happy that I was able to get a college degree considering our circumstances. Our parents were close to retirement age after the younger 2 finished. I could not have accepted any money even if they had offered. My struggle to pay for college resulted in my appreciation for it. You can’t put a price on that. It’s mostly my other siblings who have not fared as well in life thathave resentment.
I think the differentials are financially crazy. Paying $25K vs $70K for roughly the same commodity is a simple decision. In my medical school class, we had students from schools ranging from multiple Ivy League schools to lowly extensions of our state flagship school. Could not tell a difference. Neither conferred any apparent advantage or disadvantage. I suppose if you wanted to have a career in something that was more influence based than merit based and connections were important then $70K is conceivably worth it. But for the typical undergraduate education for the typical (if high achieving) 18 year old a $180K differential is huge.
A better choice financially would be to attend the state flagship and invest $180K on his behalf. At 7% per year return, he would have about $2.8 million at age 65, more than the vast majority of people of people who have worked their entire careers. Young people, and even their parents, don’t crunch numbers well. The difference is not really $25K vs. $70K today. The difference is $0 vs. $2,800,000 at age 65. The choice gets easier.
Clearly, whether it is roughly the same commodity is in the eye of the beholder. This is why I don’t think I’d buy a Maserati, even if I could afford one. It’s a car. On the other hand, some people might think brie and Velveeta are both cheese, so they are the same commodity.
Another reason I talk in terms of luxuries, is that students at top selective private schools get a lot of goodies that students at state schools don’t get. Some of these are related to the educational quality (in my opinion), while others aren’t really. An example might be getting to go with the chorus on tour to China for almost nothing. Or seeing a lot of famous people give speeches on campus. Luxury stuff. Again, none of this stuff is worth risking financial ruin to get. But my wife likes the seat warmers in her car, and we could afford them, so we paid for that.
One note: a fancy college education is just about the only luxury commodity that you might be able to get at a substantial discount if you are less well-off, or if you get one of the merit scholarships at top schools (i.e. Duke).
I’ve had several “normal cars” and a few high end cars. They both get you from A to B but they make you feel quite different. One is not better than the other, just different. I went to a large state school. My son goes to an expensive small private (full pay). They’ll both provide a good education. They will feel different. Per @Hunt, the volume of interesting speakers (Nobel Laureates, Senators, Leaders of Industry) and events at his school, traditions, etc. are astounding. That’s a completely different feel than state U (which I attended, did well, and do well). If the poster chooses to use their resources for that, great. If not, great. We’ve saved significant money on purpose by living benaeth our means. We decided the best use of that money was for our children’s education. We then decided the better education included certain things which means we have to pay more. OK. Our decision. If we didn’t have the resources, different decision.
It’s all quite personal!
All well and good. But OP may not be able to offer the same “luxury” to both kids.
This isn’t about full pay for one kid, why it might be worth it. It’s about two kids.
Btw, back when I was in grad school at a great public, we had plenty of famous guest lecturers, various other opportunities, etc. It depends on the school. It’s something one can look into, while considering colleges.
agreed. Two kids is different than one for sure. We have our daughter starting to look at schools now and will have the same conversation with her (as we did with him). She’s a musical theater kid who will track toward a BFA. Wants a top program (audition in)…here we go again 
Everyone can only do what they can do. I agree saving and spending should be built around all the kids, not just the oldest. Within that point, how far to we take fairness and when do we stop “equality”? What is fairness? Is it tied to a dollar amount or is it the necessary resources to help them get where they want and are best able to go? As an example, D says if she doesn’t get in to a top BFA program (about 20 in the country that she considers top), she’d prefer to not go to college and just spend her time auditioning on Broadway. Does that mean I should take the money I would have paid for college and support her financially for four years? If she has that attitude (vs. scholarly brother who wants to be pushed academically and surrounded by motivated peers) is fairness a matter of dollars, emotional support, etc? I believe once they get through high school, fairness is more tailored to their situation. Not a contradiction to being focused on all the kids, just a reality check that each kid has a different set of circumstances. If we were less fortunate, of course the numbers involved would come down because they would be off the table entirely.