<p>Is it me or people confuse state schools with non-elite schools? There are non-elite colleges that are private, and yet, it seems that, every so often, I get the impression that some people will confuse state schools and non-elite schools. </p>
<p>Yes, I know, many of the non-elites that people will commonly attend are state schools but they are by no means the only ones.</p>
<p>Yeah schools like UVA, UNC, UCLA, UCB, Michigan, William and Mary, UT Austin are all public and very prestigious. They probably disprove the public= not prestigious stereotype. </p>
<p>Sure there are counter-examples on each side (both prestigious publics and prestige-less privates) but is there a reason why would people confuse non-elite and state schools?</p>
<p>In many instances where I see people talking about state schools they really mean non-elite schools…</p>
<p>Im not sure. State schools tend to be less expensive than privates. Maybe people think that by paying 60k+ they are getting a better education and more prestige. </p>
<p>
I don’t recall posts confusing non-elite with state, but I have seen posts making generalizations along those lines. For example, it’s not uncommon to say “Ivy” when a poster means a highly selective college, even though most highly selective colleges are not ivies. It’s also not uncommon to say something like “directional state” when a poster means a less selective college, even though most less selective colleges are not directional states.</p>
<p>
Highly selective privates are often less expensive than state schools for families with typical incomes in the United States. For example, the FA section of Harvard’s website states the following:</p>
<p>“Ninety percent of American families would pay the same or less to send their children to Harvard as they would a state school.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kind of meaningless blather on Harvard’s part, insofar as their actual student body skews quite wealthy. Over 40% of Harvard undergrads are full-pays; I guarantee that every last one of the full-pays would pay a lot less to attend their state flagship. And who knows how many more have Harvard EFCs higher than the $20K-$30K full sticker COA of an in-state flagship. Not to mention those with Harvard EFCs below the full sticker price of their public flagship who would have cleaned up on merit scholarships at schools that offer them. </p>
<p>So the full statement should be something like: “Ninety percent of American families would pay the same or less to send their children to Harvard as they would a state school, but of course, most of them have no chance of being admitted. On the other hand, probably something like two-thirds to three-quarters of actual Harvard students pay more to attend Harvard than they would pay to attend a state school.” </p>
<p>
To be precise, CDS figures indicate that slightly fewer than 40% do not receive need based aid. More than 20% of families “pay nothing” (this likely doesn’t include various misc. expenses). The Harvard freshman survey indicates $125k is a 47th percentile income, so the median income is expected to be below $150k. While I haven’t seen specific average net cost figures by income for Harvard, Yale provides this information at <a href=“http://admissions.yale.edu/financial-aid-prospective-students”>http://admissions.yale.edu/financial-aid-prospective-students</a> . The average cost for the $100 to $150k income FA group at Yale was $11k, which would be lower cost than a good portion of state flagships. Under $100k incomes would have lower costs than state flagships for the vast majority. I’d expect Harvard FA net costs to be similar to the Yale figures since Harvard’s FA has a rule that families with incomes of up to $150k and up to $100k in non-primary home + retirement assets have a net cost that is no more than 10% of income. This low a cost for incomes below the expected median suggests that many Harvard students are paying less than they would for their state flagship, maybe not the majority and obviously far below 90%, but still a good portion of the student body. That said, I agree with your general point. </p>
<p>I’m not sure I have observed any confusion about the type of school - but perhaps there is confusion about the quality? That is, I think a lot of people would think or assume that the non-elite privates are comparable in educational quality to various public schools. From there it can be hard to understand why anyone would choose to pay substantially more to attend the private than the public- so in the absence of substantial merit or need-based aid, it can be difficult to see the attraction of the non-elite.</p>
<p>I admit to having those feelings myself. When my daughter was applying to private colleges, she quickly focused on reach schools and I was at first concerned about that. Then I realized that her “safety” was in fact the UC system – she had guaranteed admission – and I also realize that even though I didn’t think UC Santa Barbara or Santa Cruz was the best fit for her, I wouldn’t have wanted to take on substantial debt to send d. out of state to a school that didn’t seem to offer more in terms of educational quality. So the appeal of the safety-level private schools paled in my mind once I started considering dollars. </p>
<p>As it happened my daughter was admitted to elites – and of course the elites tend to be the most generous with need-based aid – so I was happy to send her packing. But I am glad I didn’t face the alternative of a daughter who wanted to attend a private college that was clearly weaker than the in-state publics, at considerable expense, just for the sake of getting away. </p>
<p>It is probably due to US New rankings?</p>
<p>Sure, it is less likely to make generalizations about non-elite schools from state school experience when it comes to financial planning and financial aid, but I saw some people confuse both in all other aspects of undergraduate education.</p>
<p>I think Harvard’s goal in making that point is just to encourage more middle- and low-income kids to apply. Their generosity is well known among the kids who need it the least. The kids I meet in the Chicago public schools have NO idea that Harvard et al. would be cheaper for them than city college, and there are a handful in each school who have a real shot at getting in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Net Price Calculator”>https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculator</a> suggests that, for a family in California of 3 with 1 in college, parental income of $125,000 to $150,000 but no assets would result in a net price of $17,100 to $19,600. Of course, throwing in assets, would increase the net price, but adding more family members, particularly those in college, would decrease the net price. So we may not know what Harvard students and their parents are actually paying, due to not knowing the full financial-aid-relevant financial details, but the Harvard net price calculator makes it easy to try “what if?” scenarios with Harvard financial aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even for the $150K - $200K families at Yale (or the 99% of them who qualified for aid), the average parental contribution was only $22,500. That is below the total in-state COA at many state flagships (including the UCs, Michigan, UVa, William & Mary, and UIUC). </p>
<p>How worried should we be about the Yale and Harvard families earning over $200K?</p>
<p>Could we ever, ever, ever have a thread that does not end up discussing Harvard? Once again we have a thread with the word “elite” in it, and the fifth poster brings up Harvard. Why do we do that? </p>
<p>eastcoast- sure, i’ll bite. I think the problem is that some folks hear “University of New Haven” and assume it’s public (it’s not) or U Penn (not Pennsylvania’s state flagship), or Cornell (some landgrant/quasi public colleges, some private; some preferences for NY residents and some not), etc.</p>
<p>The landscape of higher education is too complicated for most folks to really fathom. The idea that there there’s no simple ranking system (unlike say the UK where people don’t get up on a soap box to claim that Leeds is just as good as Oxford. It may well be, but nobody would say that) just makes it easier for people to grasp onto the simplest organizing system they can find.</p>
<p>Doesn’t make it right. Doesn’t mean it’s accurate. And it especially doesn’t mean that someone should assume that their kid needs to be at a mediocre, second tier private U if the kid can get into, and they can afford a top tier public U whether in their own state or somewhere else. YMMV.</p>
<p>I know quite a few parents who tell their students that they can expect family to pay up to what they would pay for the state flagship, and that the student will have to make up the rest in merit money or loans if they want to go private or OOS public and cannot get need-based aid. That is one reason why state schools are often compared to elite schools. Nonetheless, many students find themselves comparing offers from a mix of public and private schools.</p>
<p>Sometimes parents pay more for the privates if they can, even if a well-regarded and less expensive flagship is an option, and even if the private isn’t “highly ranked” (Ivy or “top 5” or “top 15” or whatever would float another parent’s financial comfort boat) because they feel their students will get better academic support services, that will in turn lead to a better chance of graduation or graduation in the desired major. There are many perks at public universities such as smaller classes with attention from carefully vetted professors and TA’s, ramped up counseling, priority registration, enhanced access to internships and research opportunities, etc., that are available only to those students who are qualified and remain qualified for honors classes, leaving everyone else to sink or swim. This is especially true of intro classes. (That is why honors programs are expensive for universities to run.) </p>
<p>Jeesh! It’s not like “elite” has any precise, technical definition! I sometimes use it to avoid getting entangled in a fight about who is elite and who isn’t (Chicago? Vanderbilt? Michigan?) and whether the “Ivies” are really categorically different from anywhere else. I also sometimes use the epithet “hyperselective” when talking about admissions, not the character or quality of education at a college, to denote those colleges that routinely reject the vast majority of high-quality students who apply. Probably none of the elite public universities really qualifies as hyperselective. Therefore, it’s clear (at least to me) that “hyperselective” is not the same as “elite,” but I can’t think of any hyperselective college that I wouldn’t call “elite.”</p>
<p>University of Rochester is a selective private research university, but many hear the name and assume it is a SUNY.</p>
<p>@ptigers7 Remember that CC has been helpful for a handful of average Joes. </p>
<p>Oh, of course, some of the people who confuse publics and non-elites are the parents whose kids are strong enough to attend “reaches-for-anyone”, or these kids themselves, but this is a mistake average Joes also make.</p>
<p>ptigers, I hope you hang around here long enough to realize Ivies aren’t the only ticket. It was a sports league. :D/ There are women’s colleges, performing arts/cinema places, and tech schools. Schools outside of the NE are not in Ivy League, but who wouldn’t consider Stanford, UChicago, CMU, Carleton, NW, etc to be superselective?</p>