<p>I haven't really kept up with it but I seem to remember that Rice has traditionally charged a bit less than comparable private universities. I also think I heard that the gap has been closing in recent years.</p>
<p>I don't know what other universities are charging this year, but the bill I got from Rice for my son's first year suggests that the gap might be quite small now. Also, some list of the best values came out recently and Rice is not on the list. I think they used to regularly be on such lists.</p>
<p>Rice is still about $7000 less a year than “peer” schools, but the gap is smaller than it used to be. If you get needbased aid, it doesn’t make a difference… but it does matter for those students paying full-price.</p>
<p>Rice is still number 4</p>
<p>[Personal</a> Finance Tools and Calculators Kiplingers Sortable Rankings of Private College Values - Kiplinger](<a href=“Kiplinger | Personal Finance News, Investing Advice, Business Forecasts”>Kiplinger | Personal Finance News, Investing Advice, Business Forecasts)=ALL&myschool=none&outputby=table</p>
<p>it is interesting to note (unrelated) that our SAT math and verbal trail some of the top institutions significantly</p>
<p>Rice has 2 conservatory like programs. Both the architecture and music schools rely on other criteria for admission and scores are a low priority. Since they are a statistically significant part of the entering class, it has an affect on the average score. They should really take conservatory like programs out of the numbers to see what is expected for the rest of the university.</p>
<p>That is an excellent point. Would never have thought of it. I’d be interested to see the results of that s well.</p>
<p>And Rice is a small school with D1 football and basketball. The report that came out about 7 years ago when Rice was deciding whether or not to continue in D1 sports, mentioned the negative impact it made on average scores/student quality. (In general, the football/basketball and some other recruited athletes scores are lower than non-athletic recruit scores - sometimes significantly.) When you have such a small school, the percentage of students that are recruited athletes is larger, hence more downward impact on average scores than a much larger school with similar sized football/basketball teams.</p>
<p>Ah yes. That. </p>
<p>I seriously lament the fact that we completely disregarded the McKinsey report. Having been to every single home football game (except for one) and worked with the athletics department for 2 years in some capacity, we have issues. Watching the football team is painful. (now, dont quote 2008 as a counter. Im talking historic not one year. Our all time win% against uh is like 28% for the record)</p>
<p>In a recent survey conducted by the SA, 60% of the student body did not care about football. Hopefully the administration will take heed and stop bleeding money. It will also help up our test scores and general selectivity.</p>
<p>Just my mini-rant. Tons of people disagree with me. </p>
<p>Quote from the report</p>
<p>
</p>