<p>"This has brought back up some rather harsh feelings I have had toward the LAC regarding the 22k we paid, and the 12k the program cost."</p>
<p>I also felt mad all over again when I read the NYTimes yesterday. We had the same experience, paying the full comprehensive fee for our eldest D's LAC while her overseas program was much less expensive. What really infuriated us was that we had to battle the college for a small reduction in the fee because the program didn't cover any food costs. Apparently they expected us to pay for her food twice. Needless to say, when they later contacted us for donations, we told them we'd already given. </p>
<p>When we toured colleges with our younger kids we always asked what the policy was on payment for study abroad. In both cases, they chose colleges which charge only a small administrative fee and we pay the cost of the overseas programs directly.</p>
<p>Mini, the issue of the JYA costing more than tuition is not that important. We all know that the cost of attending a LAC exceeds the tuition charged by a fair margin. And that is a point that has been by the researchers at your UG alma mater, and I believe repeated by you.</p>
<p>Further, the issue of financial aid is not relevant to the parents of students who are receiving little to none of it. Twist and churn it all you want, but there are no good reasons from charging the same tuition when the costs are vastly different. </p>
<p>What is the policy at Smith regarding studying abroad? Does someone pay the tuition at Smith regardless of the tuition cost abroad, or does the school charge the exact cost as the colleges that forfeit the potential profiteering do? </p>
<p>That is the only question that needs to be answered, and the answer determines the probity of the school on this issue.</p>
<p>This is a known fact--and Americans aren't the only ones at the mercy of this cash operation. The UK and EU university systems spend millions recruiting students from Asia, SE Asia and the Middle East--and not just for university. There are all sorts of 'education' opportunities on offer--for all ranges of education--from secondary through post grad. The overseas students pay a premium for the privilege.</p>
<p>At Rice, you pay a $250 study abroad fee per semester, and then you just pay the cost of the abroad program you attend DIRECTLY. If it is cheaper, you save money. If you have financial aid, Rice writes you a direct check, and you pay the program/foreign university directly. </p>
<p>If you don't want the affiliate programs, there are also "Exchange Programs" that Rice participates in, where you go study at a foreign university, and a student from that university studies at Rice. There is also work abroad exchanges. Also, you can petition Rice to study abroad and direct enroll at many overseas universities - it is not hard to do. Rice is very flexible about that, and it also offers lots of scholarships to study abroad, in addition to the need-based aid that travels with you.
So, Rice may accept kickbacks or free travel from some of these programs, but it doesn't seem to have affected the opportunities available.</p>
<p>I actually think it is great that these non-profit programs provide "kickbacks" in the form of travel for administrators to go and check out the study abroad programs. Wouldn't you want someone from your kid's university to be able to travel to the program abroad for free to check out and make sure that it is well-run, legitimate, rigorous, etc? Would you rather that money came from parent's pockets? Not me!</p>
<p>I do not agree that it is "great" for college administrators to travel on kickbacks. As a manager of a large government agency, I often get "opportunities" from vendors to visit their home offices so I can become familiar with their products or personnel. I never accept these offers, nor do my staff.</p>
<p>If a trip is important enough to us, then it is important enough to put it in the budget and pay our own way. No program, non-profit or not, gives away free trips--there is always an expected "cost". If schools feel the need to investigate JYA programs, then they should pay for their own administrators to go, even if it comes from parents pockets. (Because it all eventually comes from our pockets anyway.) You might find much less junkets, if the school has to pay. For example, do you like your physician attending a pharmaceutical conference in Hawaii put on by the drug company?</p>
<p>The issue of foreign universities charging more for out-of-state students is also a bit different. Since most foreign countries subsidize the cost of state universities from their tax revenues, it is absolutely normal to eliminate the subsidies for foreigners. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the practice of charging students a US-based tuition for a service that cost a lot less and pocketing or redistributing the difference is what does annoy families that have no choice.</p>
<p>I agree with Xiggi. Universities that charge more for foreign students behave exactly as American universities that charge more for out of state students, and for the same reasons.</p>
<p>"Mini, the issue of the JYA costing more than tuition is not that important. We all know that the cost of attending a LAC exceeds the tuition charged by a fair margin. And that is a point that has been by the researchers at your UG alma mater, and I believe repeated by you."</p>
<p>-- It is an issue because there is more subsidy for these programs than for the home campus. Smith owns the buildings, pays for the upkeep, hires the faculty themselves, has a permanent on-staff person there and sends one faculty member over, and then coordinates any other arrangements with local universities themselves. </p>
<p>"Further, the issue of financial aid is not relevant to the parents of students who are receiving little to none of it. Twist and churn it all you want, but there are no good reasons from charging the same tuition when the costs are vastly different." </p>
<p>-- True, and I think Smith would do well to charge the true cost to students from other schools, rather than subsizidizing them as well. It's awfully relevant to the 60% of Smith students receiving need-based aid.</p>
<p>What is the policy at Smith regarding studying abroad? Does someone pay the tuition at Smith regardless of the tuition cost abroad, or does the school charge the exact cost as the colleges that forfeit the potential profiteering do? </p>
<p>-- Folks pay the Smith tuition, except that 60% of the student body receives need-based aid, which is adjusted upwards to take account of any extra foreign expenses. Or at least ours was. (We got a good deal.) It isn't adjusted downward when the college's expenses are lower. </p>
<p>Does the school "profit" from other arrangements? I would imagine so. Could the 60% of students receiving need-based aid do better purchasing the program themselves and then foregoing the aid? That would be a good question, and, as in all things college, the answer is likely "depends".</p>
<p>There are schools such as Smith or Columbia or Chicago that have their own staff abroad; this raises the cost of studying abroad beyond what foreign universities charge. Others have a mix, e.g. using the Butler program for their students but also allowing students to apply on their own to the same foreign institutions that have been vetted for credit. Still others allow their students greater freedom to choose how to spend their semester abroad, on the grounds that his will give the students much greater exposure to the society and culture of that country instead of living in an American enclave and also to tailor their sojourn abroad to their particular interests.</p>
<p>Whatever the case, the cost of studying abroad should be the same for all students at a university so that students can make their decisions on academic rather than financial considerations. The cost of studying abroad for an individual student may therefore be significantly higher than the cost charged by the university chosen by the student, and that is something colleges could explain better.</p>
<p>The savings for the university, however, are not distributed back to the students. In fact, in some cases, it costs more to study abroad than to stay on campus since airfare can be an added expense. </p>
<p>Nobody has chosen to spend a semester studying abroad because it is cheaper: that's because it is not cheaper, as we have all shown. But many have gone abroad to study because it is cheaper: they have gone to Canadian or British universities. Tuition of $18k at Oxford is one half of $36k at most top American universties.</p>
<p>An Oxford education, on a par with HYPS, can be had for less than half the cost, even at non-resident rates, since it takes three years instead of four.</p>
<p>Several kids from our school are attending McGill. The parents mentioned finances as one factor in the decision.</p>
<p>McGill is actually more expensive/comparably costly than Oxford. ($13,000 in tuition PLUS housing and other fees).</p>
<p>In the elite college admissions game, obviously McGill is a great choice. But most state Us are still MUCH cheaper than McGill. UVA, for example, has instate tuition for $8500ish.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Universities that charge more for foreign students behave exactly as American universities that charge more for out of state students, and for the same reasons.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmmmmm. Perhaps US states are taking in OOS students as specific revenue streams but isn't the primary motive to get better qualified students? Don't many of the OOS students get tuition breaks?</p>
<p>Foreign countries do not spend 3% of their GDP on tertiary education as the US does. The relatively rich EU countries spend only 1.5% of their GDP on tertiary education. Foreign universities do not have billions in endowments. Thus, compared to US universities, foreign universities are cash-strapped. They recruit and take in large numbers of foreign students to generate specific revenue streams--and these matters are debated in public becasue the institutions come to rely on the overseas students for basic operating costs.</p>
<p>Tuition for an English major at Oxford is $24K per year (l12K pounds converted on Oanda.com = US$24K). ADd in the Cost Of Room and Board plus airfare--in pounds--ouch!!--and you'll get remarkably close to the $40K per year for Harvard. Plus, quite a few degrees require four years of study. </p>
<p>My son was in London for three months this year and believe you me--the pound is the currency to earn--not spend. Yowza.</p>
<p>
[quote]
-- Folks pay the Smith tuition, except that 60% of the student body receives need-based aid, which is adjusted upwards to take account of any extra foreign expenses. Or at least ours was. (We got a good deal.) It isn't adjusted downward when the college's expenses are lower. </p>
<p>Does the school "profit" from other arrangements? I would imagine so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mini, thank you for your reply. However, with all due respect, your posts do not address the issue at hand, despite your claims to the contrary. You are painting a picture of an idyllic program that costs MORE than the cost of tuition at Smith. While that might define the program attended by your daughter, this is NOT what has been discussed in this thread. What has been debated is the fact that schools "resell" a program at at mark-up by elevating the cost of a **lower **priced program to the cost of tuition in the US. </p>
<p>So, let's remove the "self contained" programs abroad from a discussion that is about non-owned programs that are used as profit centers.</p>
<p>And, fwiw, you may consider how the Florence program that loses money is being subsidized by the full paying parents (with Smith students abroad) who do see their dollars being captured for someone else's benefit. Why does a parent have to arrange a one-year sabbatical to avoid being hosed by Smith? And being hosed is exactly what Smith does when they ask parents to pay the full tuition for their children who are abroad at a much cheaper program. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In the elite college admissions game, obviously McGill is a great choice. But most state Us are still MUCH cheaper than McGill. UVA, for example, has instate tuition for $8500ish.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, but we are not discussing in-state tuition for the most part. </p>
<p>Cheers: Where did you see that Oxford tuition was $24k? I saw the tuition as being 3k+ pounds plus nearly 5k pounds more for non-UK/EU residents. So I converted it to about $18k. (yes, the exchange rate hurts; I remember the days when the pound was worth less than $1.50)</p>
<p>"And, fwiw, you may consider how the Florence program that loses money is being subsidized by the full paying parents (with Smith students abroad) who do see their dollars being captured for someone else's benefit. Why does a parent have to arrange a one-year sabbatical to avoid being hosed by Smith? And being hosed is exactly what Smith does when they ask parents to pay the full tuition for their children who are abroad at a much cheaper program.</p>
<p>As I said, it is an issue of probity."</p>
<p>I just don't see it that way. Smith doesn't lower the financial aid for students who attend a less expensive program, and since 60% of them are receiving such aid, I think that is the KEY issue, not a side one. </p>
<p>As to hosing....well, yes, there is that engineering program that costs an arm and a leg - hate paying for that - why couldn't they all be English majors...and why the big gym when they should be in their rooms knitting...oh, yes, it would allow them to turn down the heat as well. </p>
<p>And yes, there are some "iffy" programs in Italy, even in Florence. My stepnephew from Duke attended one....well, I'll be polite and simply say that, even at cost, it was overpriced. </p>
<p>All this says is that, when choosing schools with heavy emphasis on study abroad, kick the tires and choose wisely.</p>
<p>This has NOTHING to do with financial aid, unless your definition of financial aid for the Smith JYA entails robbing one set of parents for the benefits of others.</p>
<p>But heck, it is pretty clear that --in your mind-- parents who can pay more should pay more for the privilege of attending cheaper schools under the imprimatur of Smith or ... rubbing elbows with Smithies at one of their private programs. </p>
<p>None of the elements in your reply changes the fact that when Smith charges a full paying parent the Smith tuition for a lower price program aboard, the school is taking advantage of one set of parents. As I said, your individual views of the financial aid at Smith are very positive, and so are your views of the JYA at Smith. I am sure that parents who receive a full bill do not view being ripped off by Smith through the same rosy glasses.</p>
<p>Thanks, Cheers. I had not seen the chart. I looked at a different part of the website and made my calculations on that basis. Tuition at 12k pounds (a shade less than $24k) is pretty steep; it's still cheaper than the $36k charged at most top colleges here. And an Oxford degree takes only 3 years instead of 4, not that it is relevant to the JYA discussion.</p>