<p>DPK,
I'll chime in here with a word of caution- the word 'fit' is essential to comparing colleges for your child. Tuition $$$ does not determine whether a college is a good fit for some highly academic students. Do indepth research about any college that offers $$ and be sure they have the programs that one of his/ her full tuition choices offers. My S was one of those CC kids last year who was lucky enough to be accepted at many colleges, including 2 Ivy's, and he also received a full tuition scholarship at a top 25 university where he decided to matriculate.The full tuition was definitely a factor, but was not the only reason he decided to go there. BUT he has come to realize it is not a good FIT for HIM-it has a weak English and History programs,is too large, and is more suited for pre-professional students. So he is going to try to transfer to one of the Universities with more indepth liberal arts programs that said yes last year.</p>
<p>If this is solely a question of long term economics, i.e., your son fits at either place, and you/he can afford the tuition/loan payments, then there are, to me, several factors which include:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>What is the "dream school"? Meaning no offense to those on here whose kids attend extremely highly rated schools, there is a vast difference in terms of national cache between a few schools--Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT--and anywhere else (and I say this as a graduate of the University of Michigan abd Northwestern University Law School, both of which rate high up on the rankings/prestige scale). If the dream school is one of HYPSM, you have a clear in the door plus on other students which will, over the course of time, quite possibly translate into a recovery of the $150,000 and more. At anywhere else (including the other Ivies, the public Ivies, the top LACs, etc.), the advantage is iffier and more regional in scope. </p></li>
<li><p>Is your son planning to go into a particular area? For engineering, MIT, Cal Tech, etc. have a cache which might make the dream school economically worthwhile. The same is true in other areas as well. </p></li>
<li><p>Where does he plan to locate after graduation? Going to a prestigious LAC, e.g., Williams means a lot more in New England than it does if he plans, say to live in Texas after graduation. Going to larger state schools instead of the Ivy League is generally not looked down on in the midwest, but may be viewed differently in the East.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>All of this assumes that the more highly prestigious school is a fit and not just a source of prestige/pride. It's not about who lets in what percentage of kids, it's about how YOUR KID will survive and thrive at school.</p>
<p>An interesting article:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Worthless Ivy League?
It's no guarantee of success. Podunk's competent grads will beat Princeton's incompetents.
By Robert J. Samuelson
Newsweek, November 1, 1999 </p>
<p>We all "know" that going to college is essential for economic success. The more prestigious the college, the greater the success. It's better to attend Yale or Stanford than, say, Arizona State. People with the same raw abilities do better and earn more by graduating from an elite school. The bonus flows (it's said) from better connections, brighter "peers," tougher courses or superior professors. Among many parents, the terror that their children won't go to the "right" college has supported an explosion of guidebooks, counselors and tutoring companies to help students in the admissions race.
The trouble is that what everyone knows isn't true. Going to Harvard or Duke won't automatically produce a better job and higher pay. Graduates of these schools generally do well. But they do well because they're talented. Had they chosen colleges with lesser nameplates, they would (on average) have done just as well. The conclusion is that the Ivy League -- a metaphor for all elite schools -- has little comparative advantage. They may expose students to brilliant scholars and stimulating peers. But the schools don't make the students' success. Students create their own success; this makes the schools look good.</p>
<p>Evidence of this comes in a new study by Alan Krueger, an economist at Princeton, and Stacy Berg Dale, a researcher at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Until now, scholarly studies had found that elite colleges lifted their graduates' incomes beyond their natural abilities. The bonus was about 3 percent to 7 percent for every 100 points of difference in SAT scores between schools. Suppose you go to Princeton and I go to Podunk; Princeton SAT scores average 100 points higher than Podunk's. After correcting for other influences (parents' income, race, gender, SAT scores, high-school rank), studies found that you would still earn a bit more. If I make $50,000, then you might make $53,500 (that's 7 percent).</p>
<p>But Dale and Krueger suspected that even this premium -- not huge -- might be a statistical quirk. The problem, they write, "is that students who attend more elite colleges may have greater earnings capacity regardless of where they attend school." Characteristics important for admission "may also be rewarded in the labor market." What might these be? Discipline. Imagination. Ambition. Perseverance. Maturity. Some exceptional ability. Admissions officers may detect these characteristics from interviews or course difficulty (different from grade average). But earlier studies didn't capture these factors.</p>
<p>To do so, Dale and Krueger examined the 1976 freshmen of 34 colleges. They ranged from Yale, Bryn Mawr and Swarthmore (highest in SAT scores) to Penn State and Denison University (lowest in scores). The SAT gap between top and bottom was about 200 points. Dale and Krueger knew which colleges had accepted and rejected these students as well as their future earnings. By 1995, male graduates with full-time jobs earned an average of $89,026; women earned $76,859.</p>
<p>Dale and Krueger then compared graduates who had been accepted and rejected by the same (or similar) colleges. The theory was that admissions officers were ranking personal qualities, from maturity to ambition. Students who fared similarly would possess similar strengths; then, Dale and Krueger compared the earnings of these students -- regardless of where they went. There was no difference. Suppose that Princeton and Podunk accept you and me; but you go to Princeton and I go to Podunk. On average, we will still make the same. (The result held for blacks and whites, further weakening the case for race-based admission preferences. The only exception was poorer students, regardless of race; they gained slightly from an elite school.)</p>
<p>The explanation is probably simple. At most colleges, students can get a good education if they try. "An able student who attends a lower tier school can find able students to study with," write Dale and Krueger. Similarly, even elite schools have dimwits and deadbeats. Once you're in the job market, where you went to college may matter for a few years, early in your career. Companies don't know much about young employment candidates. A shiny credential (an Ivy League degree) may impress. But after that, what people can or can't do counts for more. Skills grow. Reputations emerge. Companies prefer the competent from Podunk to the incompetent from Princeton.</p>
<p>If you can't (or won't) take advantage of what Princeton offers, Princeton does no good. What students bring to college matters more than what colleges bring to students. The lesson has relevance beyond elite schools. As a society, we've peddled college as a cure for many ills. Society needs more skilled workers. So, send more students to college. College graduates earn much more than high-school graduates. So -- to raise incomes -- send more students to college. In that, we've succeeded. Perhaps three quarters of high-school graduates go to college, including community colleges.</p>
<p>But half or more don't finish. A new study from the Department of Education ("College for All?") reports that these students achieve only modest gains in skills and income. What determines who finishes? In another report, Clifford Adelman -- a senior researcher at the Department of Education -- finds that the most powerful factor is the difficulty of high-school courses. And the finding is strongest for black and Hispanic students. Not having enough money (inadequate financial aid) explains few dropouts. Tough courses do more than transmit genuine skills. They provide the experience -- and instill the confidence -- of completing something difficult.</p>
<p>How to motivate students to do their best? How to make high schools demanding while still engaging? How to transmit important values (discipline, resourcefulness, responsibility) to teenagers, caught in life's most muddled moment? These are hard questions for parents and society as a whole. If the answers were self-evident, we'd have already seized them. But going to college -- even Harvard -- is no shortcut.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Our S chose to attend a very good school with a half tuition merit scholarship. We went back and forth with the decision even after it was made but it all worked out. He is in the Honors Program there and since he now thinks he may be interested in Law School or grad school we are glad he saved us the extra 68K.</p>
<p>Ultimately, we decided that it wasn't fair to penalize our S because several schools offered him nice merit aid awards and let him make the choice. If he hadn't been a NMF, he would not have received many/most/all of the awards any way. While it did make us think & talk about it, we are glad that he made the choice he did.</p>
<p>Prestige isn't the only reason to go to a more expensive school. I didn't go to Stanford for the prestige, I went there because it was absolutely the perfect place for me. IMHO, that's worth the money even more so than the prestige of the school.</p>
<p>In our case, we turned down a Regent's at Cal because we felt D would flourish in a place the size of Princeton. No public universities that she looked at were that size. Also, I had been focused on providing via my family the capacity to pay for college for years. She is flourishing. Would she have been OK at Cal? Um, probably.</p>
<p>We never know "the path not taken," and all do what we think best with the info & resources at our disposal. Students can thrive in a variety of environments but can never fully answer the "what ifs."</p>
<p>DD went with the more expensive school. To be honest, we understood her decision completely and WE even felt the smaller and more expensive school was a better choice for HER even though, yes, we would have saved a LOT of money. Bottom line for us...she has been there for the first term, it has been a very positive experience. She loves the school, the courses are challenging and interesting, and she feels at home there (and it's as far away from here as you can get). Some folks would call us fools, but we didn't put financial restrictions on our son or daughter when they applied to colleges. Yes, it has meant some sacrifices for all of us (them included) but it has worked out for us. Sometimes it's not all about the money (although I sure do wish these schools my kids attended were just a tad less expensive!!!).</p>
<p>Because of the increasingly high costs of education, I think we will see more and more Ivy-capable students enrolling at the lower cost state u's. Several of the state u's offer merit scholarships, including full rides to top candidates. But the school has to be a "fit". Applicants and parents must visit schools and get a feel for each place. Every school will have positive aspects and negative aspects. The student has to be comfortable with his decision. What might be called a "safety" to one student is another student's "dream" school...</p>
<p>I've posted this before, but choice to attend a school among top 10 in S's field was irresitable, altho other colleges offered $10k in merit, and NMF and state program would have been free. I felt imp to have a small school with a strong Core than a college with separate colleges (CS, engineering, science, etc). I wanted S to have option to shift major after completing the Core.</p>
<p>Happily, upperclass merit scholarships and summer internships have already made up for the merit awards offered elsewhere. I think s would have been happy at several other colleges, but I still don't think he would get the stimulation from peers at state U.</p>
<p>On another dimension, my g/f is paying for her more academically challenged S to attend a small private school, rather than a state U. He certainly seems to have matured and is more social than I've ever known him to be. G/f is quite content with paying the extra $, as her S seems so happy.</p>
<p>I think this has been said already, but the absolute first thing you have to take into account is fit. If your son's dream school fits him very well but he hates the 'safety' and everything about it, it's worth paying the extra. If he only attends because of the money he will not be as motivated and be more likely to do less well. However, if he feels both are a good fit and the dream school only fits marginally better, follow the money. He will probably do just as well and fit in just fine.</p>
<p>I'd follow Karp4170's example and have him go through all the factors he considers important with each school to see how each fits him. If his dream school is Harvard or Princeton or whatever just because of the name and not for any specific reasons, he has some thinking to do. If his dream is Harvard or Princeton because they have clubs, EC's, social life, etc. which he is really into, then that's a good sign.</p>
<p>I was faced with this choice last year, I would have had a full ride at Purdue for national merit, or I could go to Caltech with almost no aid. </p>
<p>It was never a question for me. It wasn't necessarily a decision made based on prestige of the schools. Caltech was just a much better fit for me, and offered more oppertunities for me. There's a lot more than just classes to a college- it's also the environment. Will you have the same overall success if you go to a state school instead of an ivy? Will the prestige of the degree make a difference later in life? Probably not. However, you're going to be spending four years at the college you choose to go to, and any ivy/equivelent school will have a much different environment and many different oppertunities than you would see at a state school.</p>
<p>What if there is not such a clear distinction between 'dream' and 'safety'? Wonder if the full-ride comes from a tier one school? Do you choose the slightly higher ranked school, according to U.S. News, or choose the full-ride to another very distinguished institution? A Number 1 or 2 National University vs. a top 15 LAC on full ride?</p>
<p>what we did-
was develop our* own* criteria-
of what D was looking for- and weighted the criteria.</p>
<p>Which gave us solid numbers to look at when we then evaluated the schools that seemed like a fit- using not USNews criteria ( although they were a source for data)- but our own that was meaningful to our family.
whether you go for a natl U or a Lac depends what you are looking for.</p>
<p>We really didn't pay attention to US news rankings at all- although we did use lots of other sources for info, including our own visits and communication with college profs that we knew.</p>
<p>One criteria that we used for example, that other families might not consider was public transportation. D didn't own a car, neither we nor she wanted to incur the hassle or expense- so that narrowed the search to areas that had good or better alt transportation, including bike awareness.
Obviously US News doesn't even mention use of flexcars or bus passes ;)</p>
<p>HOBNYC, if you're choosing schools solely on their rankings, you're making a mistake. You should look at the oppertunities you will have at each schools, and how you think you will fit at each school and enjoy your time there.</p>
<p>We ended up taking the same route as thumper1. It won't be a breeze, but we can do it (fingers crossed). As curmudgeon noted, full 100% merit scholarships are few and far between. S. would probably have received some merit aid at a few schools, but it would not have been 'full-price vs. free ride.' It's that in-between cost that we decided we could handle. We will probably not qualify for need-based aid until our second son heads to college. We have saved up a good amount over the last 10 years, but recently learned that savings aren't necc. an advantage when it comes to financial aid... (any good threads or books to suggest regarding this sort of advice?)<br>
There are many reasons 'his' school works for him - small classes, amazing course selection in his area of interest, location, (and yes, public transportation), large enough but not too large, far enough but not too far, and "fit."</p>
<p>A friend of mine got into Harvard and Yale among others for undergrad and passed them up to go to a not-so-good state school for a free ride. Being an intelligent and motivated individual, he had no trouble getting into a top law school, which is where he's at now. Because he saved money by going to a state school, he has less trouble affording law school now than he otherwise would, and his earning potential will not be less than a fellow graduate from his law school who went to HYPS for undergrad, all other things being equal. </p>
<p>It really depends on what you want out of your undergrad education, and what your future goals are. Say you're planning on going to med school. Your MCAT (is that the name?) scores will be roughly the same if you go to the safety schoool or to the 'dream school' and your GPA will likely be higher at the safety. Does it matter that you went to Podunk State for undergrad if you graduated from JHU Med School? Doubtful.</p>
<p>I agree with you, bartleby. In my opinion, there could be more opportunities open to a top student at Poduck State because there's less competition. And many state u's are trying to lure well qualified students away from the "prestige" schools.... It's interesting to note what schools - besides the Ivies - have produced Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, Fulbright scholars and the like. These awards and recipients can be looked up on the 'net and these accolades don't always go to just the students at prestige schools. (Food for thought.)</p>
<p>I will be attending Duke next year as a National Merit Semifinalist. Thus I passed up the full-ride offers for NMSF: Oklahoma, ASU, UA, etc. My parents have agreed to pay for it citing Duke's stimulting environment and perfect fit. It all depends on one's family situation really. If it is a significant financial hardship on your parents, I say students have almost an obligation to take the money, particularly with younger siblings coming up. Granted, I may sound somewhat hypocritical since I come from Wisconsin, a state with a great flagship and I have two younger brothers. I am willing to do what it takes to go to Duke so in that case, it's worth the money.</p>