<p>It’s the difference between Wellesley and Pomona that seems especially out of line to me. As far as I know, neither of these schools offers merit aid. Could there really be that much difference in their need based aid calculations? </p>
<p>How much this family can afford and how much this student would have to incur in loans to get what she wants are still unclear to me. I’m not able to make a judgement on whether Pomona, Scripps or even Wellesley are affordable – to both the parents and the student – without clarification. </p>
<p>All we know is that they all three will cost more – maybe a whole lot more – than Holyoke. The family appears to have been prepared to spend a set amount on tuition. Now with the generous offer from Holyoke, they can save that amount or spend it on something else, like graduate school. It’s reasonable to think that kind of decision through carefully and weigh positives and negatives. But a college can cost more and still be affordable. That’s the puzzle piece that’s missing.</p>
Yes, that’s very typical with need based awards. Simple differences in the way that a college calculates and weighs home equity could easily account for the difference. The numbers the OP provided are less than the differential that I saw with my kids for need-based aid only. </p>
<p>I think the choice is obvious–money is an issue for the OP. Given that, MHC is the obvious choice. It’s an excellent school and it will provide OP’s D with a great education. </p>
Simple math tells us that the parents’ magic number is $46,000.</p>
<p>I do agree that things would have been clearer if the OP had posted that in the first place instead of making usbalumnus and me do so much math. </p>
<ul>
<li>Does the department/major exist?</li>
<li>What expected core and elective courses in the major are offered, and how often?</li>
<li>For some majors, the core major courses may emphasize different aspects (e.g. are the economics courses math-intensive?) that may be relevant for some students.</li>
<li>What are the faculty research interests within the department (for those planning to go to PhD study)?</li>
<li>If external accreditation is normally expected, does the major have it or is seeking it? (Can be tricky if the external accreditation exists, but not all good departments for the major seek it, as with CS.)</li>
</ul>
<p>What it probably means is that there are some financial aid grants or scholarships at those other schools that reduce the net price to the levels given by the OP. Because each school can have its own financial aid methodology, they can produce varying net prices on need-based financial aid calculations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we assume that the parents contribute $46,000 per year ($184,000 total), then the “total 4 year loan debt” is exactly the net<em>price * 4 - $184,000 for each school, where net</em>price is the amount given by the OP. Meaning that is what the student would have to borrow (or cover with work earnings) because the parent contribution does not fully cover the net_price.</p>
<p>Another issue to look at is logistical – how easy is it to cross-register? Can it all be done from a single, coordinated computer interface, or would the student have to navigate multiple registration systems for each school in the consortium? Are the academic calendars and registration, add & drop deadlines the same for all schools within the consortium? Do the schools afford preference in enrollment to their own schools, or is enrollment generally done on a first-come, first-serve basis? Do individual schools restrict how many courses may be taken at the partner colleges and applied to the major, or is it essentially an open enrollment system where students can pick and choose courses from whatever college they like? </p>
<p>I looked up the web pages where this information is available for each of the colleges under contention- I left out Wellesley given the stated preference for less-expensive Pomona:</p>
<p>Suffice it to say that it’s rather complicated and there definitely are some limits. A consortium with a cross-enrollment agreement clearly does not function in the same way as a university with subsidiary schools and colleges. </p>
<p>OK, got it: $46K per year is the magic number. Whether the parents should encourage their daughter to walk away from Holyoke’s package and write a check to Pomona, Scripps or Wellesley appears to be the central question here. </p>
<p>On top of that issue, the daughter needs to decide if it’s a good idea for her to incur debt upon graduation of $16K for Pomona or $2K for Scripps. $52K for Wellesley is out of the question.</p>
<p>To the second question, I’d say it’s neutral. $2 to $16K is reasonable burden for a motivated graduate of a good college. It may take her a few years to pay it back but it won’t significantly hamper her aspirations.</p>
<p>It’s the first question that is thorny and ultimately unanswerable by anyone but the parents. Sure it would be nice for the daughter to have access to that $184K for travel or graduate school, but I don’t see that as a determining factor for her. </p>
<p>We can’t know how significant the sacrifices would be for the parents should they decide to finance Pomona or Scripps: severely crippling or just restrictive? </p>
<p>I don’t see this as a case of outside pressure, but rather of mixed signals within the family itself. It seems the daughter prefers Pomona (or Wellesley) to Holyoke, but doesn’t want to impose hardship on her family. The parents want build up a financial reserve to protect their daughter’s future options (and their own to a lesser extent). </p>
<p>My suggestion would be to get beyond what’s polite and safe and talk about what they really want and what they really fear. At this point it sounds like a Gift of the Magi situation where each party gives up something they cherish and later finds that wasn’t the other party’s intention at all. </p>
<p>PS, Very funny @ucbalumus: “If X is the amount that the parents will contribute . . .”</p>
<p>@nostalgicwisdom I just want to point out that MHC’s Lynk internship program is for EVERY student, not just scholarship recipients. It’s part of a comprehensive program every student participates in starting this year, and includes a funded internship after soph or junior year. Maybe you are confusing it with their more in-depth Nexus program, which any student can choose to participate in if they wish, but isn’t part of of the standard curriculum.</p>
<p>I don’t know if the OP is still around, and what I want to offer is based on finances, and a point that no one else seems to have mentioned. For the OP’s parents or for OP herself based on taking on debt, 100,000 (just to take a round #) spent now, will be quite a bit more years down the road. Invested at interest at 7 percent, $100,000 should be worth $200,000 in 10 years, $400,000 in 20 years, and $800,000 in 30 years. This is the type of money that adds up to a great difference in retirement income for parents, or inheritance for child, and imho should only be spent if there is quite a bit more money available to the family. (i.e. don’t spend your last nickel on college tuition, when there is a great deal for a whole lot less on the table). If you have means that you just can’t tap into (i.e significant pension or 401K, real estate, etc.), then perhaps it is well spent. This becomes an issue like whether to buy the 100k car or a $20,000 car. Both get you to work, but you wouldn’t go for the luxury unless you had plenty more $$.</p>
<p>As to the colleges being considered, I have no real world personal advice as to quality, student body etc. I did not want my own kid traveling across the country for undergrad, but that is personal preference, not based on quality etc. Good luck to OP and child and to all making such decisions.</p>
<p>I haven’t read every post here, but if the OP is going to save ~142K and the student is going to save ~16K by attending MHC over Pomona (without factoring in interest), I’d say the answer is a.) Mount Holyoke College. The loan deficit on the student’s end is manageable. It’s the $142,000+ on the parents’ end (making “significant sacrifices”) that is difficult to rationalize for the modest academic/prestige/career potential gain of Pomona over MHC. </p>
<p>Spend part of that money on her grad school education. Or invest it for 20 years and gift the 400K to her. </p>
<p>I just don’t see how anyone could be so confident that a Pomona education will return that much more than a Mount Holyoke education, especially for the non-STEM, non-MBA careers that the OP’s daughter is interested in. </p>
<p>Hmmm, wouldn’t the daughter find it desirable for her parents to spend significantly less money, so that her parents’ financial future is more secure, so that they are less likely to need financial assistance from the daughter in the future?</p>
<p>You have not seen it because nobody has written anything close to it. So far, despite the nebulous description hat has led to some to speculate about the real numbers, most posters have agreed that the cost difference is sufficient to make MHC a clear choice. Of course, what is missing is how much of a sacrifice the cost to attend Pomona would represent to the family. In theory, and because the OP came here, we can safely assume that it is a concern, and a very legitimate one. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there are plenty of people who have planned for the upcoming expenses and budgeted the full COA for their children, so it is not totally irrelevant to discuss the difference in opportunities and education between what is arguably the most selective LAC in the country and one of the easiest to be admitted former “Seven Sisters.” </p>
<p>Fwiw, there are people who frequent this site that have made the decision to spend (massively) at Pomona and turned down a very geneous need-based aid package at Yale … because they had planned to fund the decision of the child. So, you have anecdotes of people shunning Yale to attend UNC (EAdad’s son on a full Morehead scholarhip) or Vanderbilt (Evil Robot’s full scholarship) or Rhodes (see above for wonderful scholarship) or to enroll at Pomona despite the higher cost. The devil is in the details and no universal line exists! </p>
<p>In the end, the decisions are based on multi-faceted elements that can only be answered by the applicants and the persons responsible for the funding. As such, NONE of us can state what is BETTER, but only speculate about what could make more sense. But speculate is all we can do! </p>
<p>As to the discussion of the financials – we don’t know where the $46K is coming from. It could be money the parents have in savings – in which case they benefit from not spending it – but it could also be that the family has a 529 account which currently has a balance of $184,000 – and the $46K representing 25% of the amount in the account. It could also be something in between – a combination of parental resources and resources already earmarked for the child or even already in the child’s name. </p>
<p>Even if there’s $184K sitting in an account, it’s pretty clear that the OP isn’t inclined to spend it when there is an option available that is much less expensive. If he/she were inclined to spend it–why pose the “is-it-worth-it” question on this board. It isn’t like the daughter’s choice is between the best of the best and East Podunk. </p>
<p>Based on MY experiences – Mt. Holyoke is way too cozy and remote for my taste, but I enthusiastically recommend it to a student with different tastes, especially one who adored Wellesley. I would strongly recommend going to the admit weekend (or some other overnight experience this month). If the student likes the atmosphere, then I think it’s a great deal.</p>
<p>Haven’t had time to read all the posts here, but given basic info in original post I’d suggest Mount Holyoke. Why? Well, based on the student’s interest in majors, many of them would point toward eventually wanting or needing an advanced degree to take full advantage of that major.</p>
<p>That said, crush undergrad grade and internship-wise and try to get out of there with zero debt, as you’ll likely take on some debt for those probable additional degree(s).</p>
<p>Sometimes posts can get lost or buried in a long thread like this – I went back and re-read the OP’s posts and found this:
</p>
<p>There was also a message in another thread that the parent had worked with the daughter to create a spreadsheet table showing the cost of each college, and sources of funds (parental income, 529 account, daughter’s loans) - as well as calculating the anticipated future monthly loan payment. </p>
<p>My daughter took out the maximum in subsidized loans to attend Barnard and I am sure that she would make the same decision again - but the debt does have an impact on her life. I think that 4 years out of college, her pay is in the low $40’s – that’s for a job in midtown Manhattan – and she is taking on more debt for grad school. Attending grad school full time was out of the question - she was accepted to all sorts of prestigious graduate programs, some with large scholarships – but even after accounting for the scholarships it was apparent that she couldn’t afford any – so she’s sticking with her day job and taking evening classes. But my daughter never had the choices that the OP’s daughter had - she would have faced very similar loan debt wherever she went. </p>
<p>It seems that the OP’s daughter really wants a LAC and she also seems drawn to a women’s college- given that she applied to and was accepted at several… I just don’t see a down side for her. </p>
<p>This seems like a no-brainer. I don’t see huge differences between them. I’ve know people who have gone to all but Scripps and have been successful in life. I had a terrific girlfriend who went to MHC. </p>
<p>As an employer, I would see these schools as relatively equal if their resumes came across my desktop. Maybe I’d see Wellesley as a little stronger, but I don’t know if that is true. Given the financial difference, go off to MHC. The campus is lovely, the Five College area is fun for kids, I’m sure the academics are fine. I’d heard Smith was better for STEM, but that is not your D’s issue. The other problem with women’s colleges for heterosexual women is men. But, that will be true of three of her four choices. So to me, a no-brainer. </p>