<p>
That’s perfectly reasonable. It sounds like you did a very responsible job of a) evaluating the value of the more expensive education to your family and b) determining that the debt assumed would be workable.</p>
<p>It seems to me that this discussion gets polarized by two specific inferences, both of which are mostly designed to be self serving of unfairly biased perspectives.</p>
<p>Some who opt for less costly choices have inferred that it is illogical to spend $200k+ out of pocket given the mountain of anecdotal evidence and studies suggesting that ultimate outcomes are not commensurate with how much one spends. The basic premise is that an equal measure of success can be attained whether launching from an inexpensive public school or an expensive private institution. Thus, their kids are not only no worse for the experience, but also saved lots of money which would not have provided any greater benefit for having been spent on the higher COA at “Dream School” or “Prestige U.” The latter is even more vigorously argued when the subject of financing an expensive school with loans is at issue. </p>
<p>I think it is fair to say that those who do pay full price or take substantial loans to go to “Dream School” or “Prestige U” don’t appreciate the inference that they have made an uninformed choice in terms of value, are wasting their money, or are making unecessary sacrifices. </p>
<p>On the other end of the spectrum, some have implied that value shoppers place a lower priority on ensuring their kids receive a high quality education. “I guess it’s just a matter of priorities,” they say, as if those who spend less short shrift their kids in equal measure. They frequently cite what they feel are qualitative distinctions that define their kid’s college experience as being superior, and thus, “worth every penny.” Their posts often suggests that certain of the most important characteristics of educational quality are exclusively found at elite schools. At times there is a readily apparent undercurrent that says, “Well, a public or lower tier may be good enough for your kids, but mine deserve only the best, and unlike you, I don’t mind sacrificing on their behalf.” </p>
<p>I think it’s fair to say that few, if any, of the parents surfing around CC value their kid’s education any less than the next person. I believe everyone here wants the best for their kids. Proclaiming that privates are better than publics in every way, suggesting that elite schools corner the market on high IQ students, or implying that those not willing to make the financial sacrifices for an elite school have “lower” educational priorities, are all polarizing statements. </p>
<p>When the discussion moves away from feeding these two extremes to other points on the scale, we learn that there are plenty of circumstances and conditions which can reasonably justify spending less or spending more without any loss of value or quality of experience. Thus, where these threads are most helpful is in people finding their own best path through advice and actual experiences of others.</p>
<p>well-stated, FLVADAD!</p>
<p>Nice summary, Flvadad.</p>
<p>That’s a pretty good summary. </p>
<p>To clarify my own position, it is not about paying more for elite schools. A school that is more expensive than another one isn’t necessarily more “elite” but just costs more. </p>
<p>But to give you one example, I’ll take my youngest child who was seeking BFA in musical theater programs. There is a finite number of those programs in the country. You have to go where they are located. On top of that, the admit rate into most of the programs ranges anywhere from 2-9%. So, you may or may not even have many options come spring. Attending the college involves a commitment directly into a program of study that has very little flexibility. So, finding the right fit is crucial as the program is spelled out for you, unlike a liberal arts degree. There are no colleges in my entire state that offer this degree. My child was lucky to get into a number of these programs and all offered some scholarships and aid. She landed at NYU/Tisch, which is a very expensive university, but she received a substantial scholarship and aid. Still, paying for the remaining amount involves loans on our part. It is not like she could have just gone anywhere in order to pursue this field. This was the best fit for her aspirations. It isn’t about “elite” but about finding the school that fits your needs. It isn’t about the job you get when you graduate but about the four years of college itself. It is not as if we think her school is “better” than the cheaper schools someone else is picking, but more that this school fit what she needed for her college experience given her interests.</p>
<p>I think the idea of “best fit,” though, simply must include a financial consideration. If a student’s “best fit” will require incurring thousands in loans on the part of that student, then it probably isn’t a good fit at all. Now, for parents who are willing and able to take on substantial debt – and pay that debt in full when the time comes – great, fine, wonderful. But if you read through the student debt thread which precipitated this thread coming back to life, you’ll see that the majority of those students profiled took the debt on themselves and now believe “something should be done” so they can be relieved of that debt. I imagine they believed their schools were “good fits,” but to make that determination absent any consideration for cost, debt, future earnings, employability of the chosen major, etc., is irresponsible. The best fit of all is the one you can afford, whether that means being able to afford large debt over several years or being able to afford actual costs.</p>
<p>^ That’s my attitude as well.</p>
<p>Always a good topic to discuss, and I enjoyed OP’s post. I think the discussion would be richer (sic) though, if people got in the habit of annotating dollar amounts with the year their value was computed at. A million dollars 40 years from now is still a lot of money, but it is now where near the million we think of today. In fact, if 4% inflation is assumed, it is about 208,000 of today’s dollars.</p>
<p>I think that most will agree that the key elements of college is fit and finances. </p>
<p>Numbers can be helpful to quantify some (but not all) decisions. </p>
<p>Let’s take a hypothetical. The numbers are only for discussion purposes ** and can be changed to anything you want.** Jerry has been accepted at a top five LAC and his state’s flagship university. The difference in cost is that 4 years will be 60,000 dollars more at the LAC (160K versus 100K). Jerry wants to go to a top grad school. He believes that he needs to finish in the top third of his class at either school to have the G.P.A. necessary to be in the running. Further, he believes that the name of his state flagship would only have a 25 percent chance of helping him get into a top grad school program and a 75 percent chance of hurting his chances, whereas he believes the LAC would have a 75 percent chance of helping him (i.e. reputation of the school beyond the grades) and a 25 percent chance of hurting him (competition from within his own LAC at these top schools). </p>
<p>The result is that Jerry has a 25 percent chance (1 out of 4) to get into a top grad school by going to the LAC. Jerry would have a 8 percent chance at the flagship university. Or another way of looking at it is Jerry is spending 160,000 dollars for a 1 in 4 chance at the outcome he seeks. Still another way of looking at it is that Jerry is 60,000 dollars more to have a 17 percent improved chance of getting into a top grad school. </p>
<p>Naturally, there is a lot more to college than being a mere stepping stone to some concrete objective. Many may find it useful just to find themselves (period). But decision tree analysis can be helpful trying to tackle the financial weighting component of ‘fit and finance.’ If anything, it helps reinforce it’s what you do at a college that matters more than anything else.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that a student should take on substantial debt and therefore the discussion is two fold…one is about kids incurring debt and another is about parents willing to send their kids to their school of choice who are willing to spend a lot in order to do so, even if the parent must pay it out over time. </p>
<p>For me, there are cultural implications. It never would have occurred to me for my kids to pay any of their educational expenses. We feel it is our responsibility to come up with a way to fund it. Education is very important in my cultural background as is the idea that parents and even grandparents, will make that happen and the next generation passes that onto their kids. </p>
<p>We did not use financial considerations in choosing a college. We applied for aid and had no idea what, if anything, we’d get. We would have sent our kids to the same colleges had they received no aid. We are very thankful for the generous aid they received and it was good, in part, as both were in college at the same time. I’m sure my life would be easier if I did not have to pay for this but this is the most important thing to us to pay for. </p>
<p>I understand if this is NOT possible for some parents to do. But a lot of posts on this thread are not about being able to pay for it but saying, “it is not worth it, go to the cheaper college.” If you cannot pay for it or pay back the loans, surely go to a cheaper college. But for some, IF they feel they can pay back the loans, even if it is difficult to do, it can be worth it and the cheaper college isn’t necessarily the best choice educationally for that student. I am not into the notion to save the money for something else instead. I get that some feel that way but not everyone does.</p>
<p>By the way, we never considered the choice of college in terms of which grad school our kids may or may not get into. One of our kids got a professional degree as an undergrad and so will not need grad school. Our other kid intended on grad school but we crossed that bridge when it came. It turned out she did get into many of the top grad school programs in her field. Most of her peers from college have also. I have no clue if that is due to where she went for undergrad and that was not a consideration in choosing her UG school. It has always been my belief that the student gets in, not the school from where she came. For that matter, my kids went to a rural public unknown high school and were still able to get into top colleges and programs.</p>
<p>
Your hypothetical makes no sense unless you believe that an individual can actually quantify the post-grad benefits of one institution over another in the fashion that Jerry can. How could one create his probabilities?</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that family priorities can lead to decisions that end up in kids going to schools that are not the best fit for them. I fully believe that some small LAC chock full of high achieving kids, for an example, would be a better choice than commuting to a local college with larger classes, kids who are not as academically prepared and able, lots of adjunct profs, a large commuting/suitcase population. But the finances may dictate the latter choice. I’ve seen it happen many times. </p>
<p>My friend’s daughter cried her eyes red after it became clear that the state U was the only realistic choice she had. She is seeking a BM in voice performance, has a lovely operatic voice and was accepted to a number of excellent programs she coveted because of their reputation, curriculums and teachers. But they gapped her by too much and would require too much in loans. Family just cannot come up with the money due to a lot of circumstances. State U is really financially where she has to go, and she is lucky to have that option. She got enough grant money that she can actually live at the school. Without that, she would have been limited to the few commutable colleges and they do not have the quality of music programs that she should be taking. Money certainly can dictate the quality.</p>
<p>And sometimes it is a better choice to go for that subtantial debt. Home might be dysfunctional and dream school may truly be the best way to go even if it means paying a lot of it for a long time to come.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse - While I agree the LAC may be the best program choice for your friend’s daughter, I can’t help but wonder what the starting salary is for someone with a BM in voice performance. It’s not just the willingness to pay back the substantial debt for a long time, it is the ability to pay back the debt for a long time. We don’t want to see your friend’s daughter’s picture on the link to student debt stories. If she doesn’t want to go to the public college and her parents can’t afford to send her to the LAC, perhaps a better choice for your friend’s child would be to work for a couple of years to save money and then try to go to her dream school. I agree these are hard choices for an 18 year old to make, but I just don’t believe a child should go into major debt unless they somehow are assured they will have the income to pay it back.</p>
<p>soozievt, You keep advocating your position as to why you paid a lot of money for your kid to go to a good musical theater program while others are continuing to knock high priced schools and especially feel that substantial indebtedness is reckless. </p>
<p>I feel that their are sevreal unrelated arguments here. I fully understand, and I think others do also, that for specialized vocationally oriented p;rograms, you may have to send your kid to a “high priced” or “elite school” over that of your local state university. Certianly, if a quality program isn’t offered in your state university, your child may have little choice. I get it! There are other factors that might mandate this too such as learning disability issues, substantial scholarships from other schools, a need for more focused education via very small classes etc.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, assuming that the state university does offer a decent program in the child’s major field then incurring substantial debt to go elsewhere for the undergrduate studies would be financially irresponsible in my opinion and may very well limit their opportunities regardless of the school’s name! Think of the poor kid who went to NYU and incurred over $150,000 in indebtedness. Do you think that they can afford to take a low paid internships with a movie studio ,which is what would be required, to get their foot in the door? Their opportunies will probably be reduced in that situation. Even with musicall theater, kids might have to work for local playhouses,which don’t normally pay well, in order to get their experience and rise in the field. How can they afford to do this with substantial indebtedness. Yes, it is a catch 22.</p>
<p>In fact, I will even go further in saying that , even if you, as the parent, can pay the cash so that no debt would be incurred, it could be argued that it would be financially irresponsible to do so IF, and I do emphasize IF, your retirement would be severely compromised; however, I do realized that this is a personal decsision. I just don’t agree with it for what its worth.</p>
<p>I just see too many people who are poor in their old age. I just see too many folks wanting handouts and complaining to the government that they need an entitlement which was usually caused by fiscal irresponsibility during their life… I don’t want people to have to eat dog and cat food when they get older because they made too high a sacrifice. I don’t want parents to have to live with their kids because they were financially irresponsible with their own retirements. However, I do get it. I do understand that it isn’t my decision to make no matter how heart breaking it is for me!</p>
<p>Remember , most people at age 50 do NOT have any type of substantial networth. If going to decent, named schools were the answer,this problem wouldn’t exist. </p>
<p>However, “I do get it” regardless of what you may have inferred from my prior posts.</p>
<p>I want to also address another argument going on here. Many folks have this belief that attending a "name ’ school or elite institution will automatically give some signficant “leg up” on admission to a top graduate or professional school. PLEASE speak to admission officers the way I have . Please contact them. Can there be a bit of a leg up if your kid goes to a top name undergraduate school? The answer from most admission folks that I have personally met is that it usually HAS NO AFFECT! Yes, even in the few schools where admissions folks said that it does help, they acknolwledged that it was only a small factor at most! Again, the key factors are usually GPA, and scores ,and recommendations, and maybe research that was incurred. Attending a top undergrad might actually be disadvantageous in fact due to the increased competition too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are creating a false dichotomy between “top, wonderful LAC” and “bottom of the barrel, commuter/suitcase public U.” There’s A LOT of schools in between (and outside) those two extremes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am a little concerned about the above statement.</p>
<p>At least in the top ranked, fully funded, PhD programs in humanities and science that my children are in, all the current graduate students come from elite undergrad colleges. Not all of their undergraduate classmates were accepted to comparable programs. Some of these classmates had 3.5 or higher averages and excellent GRE scores. Recs I don’t know about. Prospective students can ask undergraduate departments where they send their students to graduate school if that is a concern in their college choice. If the department doesn’t regularly send students on to graduate school, I do believe that student is at a disadvantage in the process. Whether it makes sense to go into such a PhD program is, of course, another debate. You probably won’t make much money - if you are lucky enough to get a job at all.</p>
<p>
Correlation does not imply causation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re arguing perfection, we can just agree that nothing is perfect and call it a day. But the discussion was based on responding to the perception that some school may better prepare/position a student for top grad school than others. As I believe that third party groups best prepare a student for standardized admission tests I’ve concentrated on what a college is involved with and that is someone’s G.P.A. and class rank. </p>
<p>Getting the G.P.A. ranges for top 10 grad school in business, law and medicine is pretty darn easy (or top five for engineering). Figuring out what percentile of the last graduating class has a G.P.A. of that or above can be determined with a phone call to the school. This doesn’t mean these kids are getting in, it means they are in the running to get in. </p>
<p>For some PH.D. programs (such as many core liberal arts majors) it is admittedly tougher. The school attended ‘may’ mean more than other programs. If someone is interested in a PH.D. track, I’d suggest checking the Fulbright winners at each school for the last few years in the major of most interest. How many and what were their grades? If a school is not getting more Fulbright winners than the other college of interest, I doubt they are going to be more successful getting their kids into top PH.D. programs either. Again, get where their G.P.A. falls within their class and this becomes reasonable data to consider. Pointedly put, if the kid is considering a top LAC and finds out he or she needs to be in the 33 percent of the class to reasonably be considered for a Fulbright, then their odds (with no other data) are one in three of making that happen. AND if they are also incurring debt to make that happen, that can be very very sobering. And if it’s too hard to send those Fulbright winners a post on Facebook to ask them what their grades were, then I’d suggest the college applicant might find a lot of things too hard in life.</p>
<p>
Yeah, but if that perception is not valid then there is no point in continuing.</p>
<p>Since you brought up Fulbright students, this might be a good time to highlight psych_'s point in post #335. Many top Fulbright producers are not necessarily highly selective or highly expensive. The same goes for other major scholarships.</p>
<p>“Pointedly put, if the kid is considering a top LAC and finds out he or she needs to be in the 33 percent of the class to reasonably be considered for a Fulbright, then their odds (with no other data) are one in three of making that happen.”</p>
<p>It’s that “other data” that cannot in practice be ignored. Like, how strong a student are we talking about ? Personally, I find all these discussions trying to quantify the ‘value’ of a selective LAC based on performance metrics rather useless, since we know that the student bodys are different.</p>