<p>As if we weren't depressed/stressed enough by the whole college thing, here is CNN/Money letting us know just how outrageously expensive college has become, listing the 10 most expensive colleges. GWU is # 2! Anyone know why? <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/27/pf/college/priciest_colleges/%5B/url%5D">http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/27/pf/college/priciest_colleges/</a> If you are in the mood for some instant sticker shock, you can type in the college of your choice and find out what you can't afford.</p>
<p>You're a few days late, jym -- my original comment still stands. I have no idea how to interpret the data, because it seems like "sticker price" doesn't mean anything these days. </p>
<p>Well, golleee. The date of the CNN article is the day AFTER the previous thread was started. You guys clairvoyant or something?
I agree, the pricetag of many schools seems to be a moving target. But, in situations where someone is considering ED or is not likely to qualify for need or merit $$, its a starting place.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The school's trustees cited several factors for the hike, but said it "will use a sizeable portion of the increased tuition revenue to continue its policy of meeting 100 percent of a student's demonstrated financial need."<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This comment explains a lot--they are raising the price for the people who will pay full-freight so that they can offer more financial aid to those who can't afford to pay full-freight.</p>
<p>But they are also squeezing those people who could have paid full freight before, but now can't. And also losing people who can pay full freight but would rather look at schools with similar academic profiles and lower pricetags. </p>
<p>I don't want to come across as bashing UR. It's a very good school. I just think they are taking a huge risk with their tuition jump, and their reasoning doesn't make sense to me -- they're comparing their tuition to the schools that they aspire to be, not their peer schools.</p>
<p>Regarding the hugh UR tuition increase, I wonder if it applies to all students or only the new incoming students. It would be terribly unfair to place the burden of such a huge increase on current students, even those whose families could "afford" such an increase.</p>
<p>Our EFC was about $81k but we did not feel comfortable in shelling out $40k per year and our son's decisionmaking process reflected this fact. If he had gone to UR, I'm not certain what we would have done.</p>
<p>BTW, one of his friends transferred from UR to the our state university this past year. She is a bit quirky and just never fit in socially. I suppose she is especially happy given the tuition increase.</p>
<p>Not to bash UR too, but I'd bet quirky would have a hard go at UR. The UR tuition increase was only for new, not incumbent students. Their increase was more reasonable. Apps to UR were down for the class of '09, perhaps because of the huge increase...</p>
<p>The increase only applies to entering students. It would have been a disaster to impose such an increase on the existing student base. There was a 5% increase for returning students. It will take a few years to sort all this out, but for last year there was a clear decrease in applications to UR -- not huge, but noticeable. It will be interesting to see how this year's applications go.</p>
<p>dudedad, looks like you replied right as I did -- sorry for the repetition.</p>
<p>"GWU is # 2! Anyone know why?"</p>
<p>Because they can get it. One of the most effective ways to raise the prestige of a college over time is to increase tuition (if you can get enough parents to pay it.)</p>
<p>"One of the most effective ways to raise the prestige of a college over time is to increase tuition"</p>
<p>And that, in a nutshell, is what is behind the UR tuition increase. Now, what they plan to do with the tuition increase may be admirable (increase the grants given to lower-income applicants). But UR hasn't exactly been shy in stating that the purpose of the tuition increase is to bring them in line with their (supposed) peers.</p>
<p>Yup. It's called "repositioning". It has been done with cars, jewelry stores, luggage, etc. </p>
<p>My favorite example (which is no reflection on the college one way or the other today, because I don't much about it today) is Georgetown. In the 60s, 70s, and perhaps into the early 80s, this was (as far as I am aware) generally considered a second or even third-rate place, certainly considered below St. John's University in New York, or Fordham, for example. Close to half the undergraduate faculty were Jesuit priests, paid next to nothing for their services. The Jesuits owned the land, free and clear. There was virtually no investment in science programs (is there today?), and they picked up a lot of extra cash by offering night classes for lower ranking members of the foreign diplomatic corps. A series of circumstances probably starting with the attendance of Patrick Ewing allowed them to raise prices very substantially (far out of line with any increase in costs or investment, from the little I know), and turn a Volkswagen into a BMW. And now it is, whatever it is, and a very desirable place to be, if you have the money. (I think NYU and George Washington both did something very similar - among New Yorkers, when I was in high school, NYU was where the City College rejects went, if they could afford it, and GW was where the NYU rejects went, if they could afford it.) </p>
<p>These schools might be excellent places to be today, and likely are - I honestly don't know one way or the other - if you've got the money to pay for them. That's the point!</p>