<p>rcdmom, I appreciated your story. Yes, if someone can get a great scholarship at a good private school, maybe they should go there over their instate university. Likewise, if a parent has a deal where the school pays their kid's tuition, this might also make attending certain private schools a priority..</p>
<p>However, for the majority of the real world here, scholarships are getting fewer and fewer. I am hearing many more horror stories of schools not meeting financial expectations. If this is the case, attending an in-state university is a MUCH better deal unless the in- state school doesn't offer the program(s) that the kid wants. </p>
<p>Likewise, although I think very highly of schools like Berkeley and UCLA, and even Michigan, I, personally, would send my kid to a top notch private school before I would send them at these state schools and pay outrageous out-of-state tuition,which is akin to what private schools charge, absent scholarships. State schools are being subject to financial cutbacks due to state funding cutbacks. top notch private schools don't seem to have this problem. This is my opinion, however.</p>
<p>"State schools are being subject to financial cutbacks due to state funding cutbacks."</p>
<p>Which is due to the problems in the general economy so that more will consider state schools because they cost less, at least in terms of sticker price. Anyone old enough to remember what happened in the last major economic downturn in the late 1980s? I'm curious about what heating and transportation bills in the Northeast this winter will do to public universities and public schools. Will they have to add this to 2009-2010 tuition (or taxes) to make up for the price increases which weren't budgeted for the next year?</p>
<p>rcdmom, great story! That's one of those "if I had the guts to do it, I'd do it!" stories -- little roads taken when paths diverge. Wow. I haven't done something like that in over 20 years. Maybe I'm overdue . . . .</p>
<p>I read on these boards the story of two parents mulling over allowing their child to apply to a college down here in So. Cal. and then when the child got in, they felt the sticker shock. I was telling that story to my son just the other day when he was saying he "should have" applied to USC even though he wouldn't be able to go if he got in.</p>
<p>Our son is at one of the costlier UCs -- Berkeley -- and I will be the first to admit, it's been a struggle for us financially, but we wanted our son to have the experience we did not have, at least the first year or so, however long we could continue to assist and could do without a decent vacation. It's been worth it on many levels. . . .</p>
<p>taxguy: Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but trust me, we do live in the real world. We sacrificed our home and the state where I had lived continuously for 36 years, moved away from the rest of our family, and took a huge risk--all because we needed to pay for our daughter's college tuition. The UC's and even the CSU's are no longer a bargain (I attended a UC and two CSU's)--the whole system is broken.</p>
<p>We were in-state residents of Calif. when our daughter chose NYU over Berkeley. The numbers I quoted are in-state: about $25,000/year.</p>
<p>And NYU, unlike many other highly ranked private schools, has no endowment to speak of and offers almost nothing in the way of scholarships, which is a shame.</p>
<p>If our situation isn't real world enough, I'm not sure what is. I know we aren't alone in using our home equity (or in our case, money from the sale of our home) to finance a child's education.</p>
<p>We made these choices willingly, however, and worked hard to regain professional lives in a new state. We were also willing to give up the luxuries we had--nice house, pool, in a gorgeous area of California--to help her further her dreams. In the process, we adjusted our own dreams and have found out that we didn't need as much as we thought we did. </p>
<p>The bottom line is, don't automatically assume that a state school will cost you less. In fact, it may end up costing equal to, or more, if your child can't graduate on time because classes aren't available or they have to work more hours and can't take as many units. And if your child can get into a top private school and earn a substantial scholarship, that can help a whole lot.</p>
<p>"We now live in 600 square feet as opposed to 1,500, we sold our cars and use the subway or bus, we look for free or low-cost entertainment in NYC (lots of choices!), and we couldn't be happier.</p>
<p>What may have seemed like a huge sacrifice to some--You're selling your home in Calif. with the pool?? And moving to NYC???--has been a boon for us. No, it hasn't been easy. Not at all. But it has been GOOD for us, in so many ways."</p>
<p>That's a pretty amazing transformation in living quarters and lifestyle. I have a friend that made a move from Boston to NYC. They sold their cars and just use Zipcar when they need a vehicle. He runs to work and lost quite a bit of weight in his first year there. His motivation was a better job.</p>
<p>I've read that suburban living only works with cheap energy and the US is certainly getting tested on that.</p>
<p>I don't think the whole UC system is "broken", but I do agree costs have skyrocketed in the last 20 - 30 years. Even when I graduated from UCLA (when fees ran $630/year or $210/quarter), that was substantially greater from just 10 years before when my parents had completed their undergrad and grad education at UCLA at about $100/year.</p>
<p>I can vouch for the $25k Berkeley figure: the breakdown last year for instate was: $8,000 in misc. fees (some what I would call "junk" fees)(for some reason they are adverse to using the word "tuition" if you're instate); add another $1,000 if you need SHIP (uni. provided insurance); dorm fees and meal plan ran from $10,500 to $15,575 for 10 months; books and materials about $1,500. This doesn't include anything else, like flights home (not so bad between the bay area and L.A., but it's still a cost to factor in).</p>
<p>As crappy as I am in math, I was able to put together a comparison chart of all the instate/out of state costs, minus scholarships, but adding air-fare, and concluded that it was cheaper keeping him instate.</p>
<p>"If our situation isn't real world enough, I'm not sure what is. I know we aren't alone in using our home equity (or in our case, money from the sale of our home) to finance a child's education."</p>
<p>Is it common though? I think that 1/3rd rent, 1/3rd own their homes free and clear and 1/3rd have mortgage payments. If you sold near the top of the housing bubble, especially in the really bubbly places like California and Florida, then you may have done very well. Many of those with mortgages are in distressed situations so tapping or cashing out home equity isn't a viable option. Our own situations may be real world to us because we're living them but they may be so far out of common experience so that no one would consider them real world. I wrote about saving 40% of income recently and most that responded did not consider that real world.</p>
<p>Great story, rcdmom! Sounds like you created and solved your midlife crises all in one fell swoop!</p>
<p>I trust your D is your only child? That made your choice easier, I'm sure.</p>
<p>We have friends who downsized in order to afford the colleges of choice for their 3 children--moved from one large old money pit of a house to a smaller, newer (but still nice) house on the same street!</p>
<p>mommusic: Yes, she's our only child--another choice we made deliberately. This was the second marriage for both of us, and she came with me as a package deal. :-) We decided we simply couldn't afford more than one child. </p>
<p>BCEagle91: I wish we had been able to sell our house a year earlier than we did. As it was, the bubble had definitely started to deflate. </p>
<p>And you're right: it has been a "huge transformation" in our lifestyle, with no house (just our tiny apartment), no cars (we use Zipcar occasionally, too), and not many luxuries (but we can be in Central Park in about 30 minutes on the subway). My husband still rides his bike to work almost every day, so he didn't have to give up his favorite sport, which was important to him.</p>
<p>Thankfully my husband and I get along, and we aren't afraid of much, especially change. It's good to shake things up when you're our age, right? Why should our college-age kids have all the fun?</p>
<p>Taxguy-"However, for the majority of the real world here, scholarships are getting fewer and fewer. I am hearing many more horror stories of schools not meeting financial expectations. If this is the case, attending an in-state university is a MUCH better deal unless the in- state school doesn't offer the program(s) that the kid wants."
And that is also contingent on the manner in which the scholarships are processed and by whom. Here in Colorado one of the satellite campuses for one of the two largest universities has a private loan company vetting scholarship applications before these even get near the academic divisions. And its very probable that they will not be processing these with any good intentions for students.
BCEagle "Which is due to the problems in the general economy so that more will consider state schools because they cost less, at least in terms of sticker price. Anyone old enough to remember what happened in the last major economic downturn in the late 1980s?"
It's already become a definite condition. Although more will consider state schools the irony is those state schools may have to absorb more new students with a limited resource base. And the increases in numbers and tuition may not be enough to compensate for the effects of a very serious economic downturn. Currently I work for a state school and already such measures such as literally counting copy paper, reducing internet bandwidth are already prevalent. Some institutions are still erecting trophy buildings but those were already in the funding pipelines before the current economic mire. Or these are an example of Jared Diamond's concept that people keep into old patterns even when these are no longer applicable or even detrimental.
And it could be that the new population which may enter state higher education will not compensate for the old base populations which will no longer be able to enter because of economic troubles. Currently at many of the gateway schools enrollment projections for the fall are not encouraging. That population which makes up the majority of that enrollment may desire to go to college to improve their lot, but due to severe economic stresses are becoming increasingly reluctant to make that decision. Overall that may not bode well for the state university systems.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The bottom line is, don't automatically assume that a state school will cost you less. In fact, it may end up costing equal to, or more, if your child can't graduate on time because classes aren't available or they have to work more hours and can't take as many units. And if your child can get into a top private school and earn a substantial scholarship, that can help a whole lot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can second this. My family's lived in Pennsylvania as long as I've been around, and my brother and I wound up going to two schools within the state. He went to the University of Pittsburgh, and I went to Carnegie Mellon. Since I got a couple of nice merit scholarships, my education actually wound up costing less than his, even though his school cost about half as much as mine! Factor in that I graduated a semester early and he took an extra one (due to studying in Moscow for a semester and doing two majors and two minors) I actually had a less expensive education than he did.</p>
<p>Also, if you're looking for ways to save a bit of money, get your kid off the meal plan ASAP and make them learn how to cook. I taught myself how to cook the summer I moved out of the dorms, and then the next year when my mom was giving me money for food, she became worried I wasn't eating because I spent so little in comparison to my brother. Boy was she surprised when I came home with my own contribution to Thanksgiving dinner! =D</p>
<p>With need based aid and scholarships, sometimes it does work out to be financially doable without incurring huge debts. The question is--</p>
<p>Should you incur substantial debt for dream school or even pay the "dream" tuition? </p>
<p>Many families do not qualify for financial aid and often times the merit scholarships offered are not large enough to make attending the "dream school" possible without the parents and/or students taking out substantial loans. It's just the way it is and it becomes a personal decision. Do you pay the ridiculous costs of a top tier private college or attend a less expensive, lower tier college/public in state university?</p>
<p>In NH, proposed budget cuts for next year include cutting $2.5 million in aid to UNH (Forbes 6/16/2008). On the other hand, MA has allocated additional spending of about $225 million for the UMass University system but it's mainly for buildings.</p>
<p>In NH, it has been getting harder to get in as students from more affluent families are applying and pushing average scores up. The limiting factor, I believe, is currently dorm space.</p>
<p>nysmile: My point in my original posting is that parents and their children don't necessarily have to incur as much debt as they think for that private "dream school" ... there may be ways to pay for it that take some creativity. Also, the in-state school, as some have concurred here, may end up costing the same as the private school, when you add in all the other factors.</p>
<p>I'm all for public education; I graduated w/degrees from UCLA, Cal State Hayward (now East Bay) and Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. I wouldn't trade my time at those schools for anything. But I will say this: Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a difference when you attend a private university. I see the differences every day my daughter is at NYU. </p>
<p>But maybe that's for another posting. Suffice it to say, I think the sacrifice is worth it. No question.</p>
<p>taxguy: The $25,000 was tuition, room/board, books--the whole deal. It's a lot of money; it's Berkeley, though, so it's worth it. UCLA77 vouched for that figure, too.</p>
<p>But the implications of these figures are astonishing: $100,000 to attend an in-state, public university. And are these students able to graduate in 4 years? Are the classes available to help them do that?</p>
<p>Actual costs for UCLA, from my own experience, are WAY over estimated by several thousand dollars. Our family's total annual expenses averaged only about $15,000 per year.</p>
<p>The personal expenses of $1500 is way more than any student would ever spend for pocket money, and $800 for transportation is also estimated way high, especially since most freshmen and sophomores living on campus don't even have a car. When he came home, he took a city bus downtown, and then rode the Metrolink train for under $20 which was much cheaper than driving or flying. The $1500 estimate for books & supplies cost can also be trimmed down by simply buying used books, and then selling them back at the end of the term. Fraternity/sorority residents can also expect to pay several thousand dollars a year less in housing fees than dorm residents. </p>
<p>My son's summer jobs easily covered the expenses for his books & pocket money. I didn't buy the $750 health insurance, instead I kept him on my employee health policy.</p>
<p>^ That would have been good to know! So you are saying it was 10k less for you? You accounted for some, but WOW! I assume the trasnportation would be more if you had to go N. Cal to SoCal or vice versa.</p>
<p>With current developments at some elite schools and dependent on the parents income going to those schools would actually be less of a burden. Harvard was one of the institutional leaders in regards to addressing the debt to education problem. At least for those entering students whose families make less than 60,000 yearly. Which may make their initiative largely symbolic insofar as that population has got to be a very small part of their enrollment. But even with that it still was action on the right direction.
But many of the state institutions cannot do this, due to reductions in federal support. And depending on the problems in state politics, cuts in state support. Colorado for example has a tax spending limitation amendment which has played hob with funding for higher education. It's been particularly hard on the institutions which aren't directly linked to the two largest university systems- simply because they cannot bring the legislature to realize they too need funding. And those conditions of federal, state cuts combined with the intense and heretofore unbelievably successful lobby pressure on congress to move US education funding policy away from grant funding to loans, doesn't exactly make Colorado (and other states) higher education the bargain it should be...
And as noted the arenas wherein the state schools often make up the tuition gap (as it were) is in the supplemental fees and services. Food plans being a predominant example, at most schools the food services are subcontracted out-although not all publicize this situation. So the college gets the franchise fees, the franchisee raises the rates on students, and the parents pay for it all. Something to be said for leaving the campus and going to the Taco Bell, or learning how to cook. Or at least learning how to tolerate a diet of ramen noodles and tuna fish (which may not be a bad thing to learn given our current economy)
One of the more distressing parts of it all is despite the average 6% yearly increase in college tuitions, the increased and appalling debt loads dumped onto students and families...is that wherever this extra money is going much of it isn't drifting down to the classroom. Many full time faculty at state schools can provide illuminating stories about lack of necessary resources, especially compared with what was available not so long ago...at least in coffee table discussions...they don't dare do this at public venues if they wish to keep their stable jobs. But the mere presence of so many ill paid, poorly treated and exploited adjuncts is a de-facto revealing of the secret of how limited the resources applied to the lecture room or lab have actually become. Someones raking in the millions but its not going to the students...or the faculty...
And incidentally another casualty of the funding/debt in higher education issue is that many faculty dare not comment about the problem.</p>