<p>Brooklynborndad</p>
<p>It is my impression that all of these expensive schools receive applications from many more qualified students than they are able to actually enroll. Granted those numbers would probably decline if some students were required to pay more but it is likely they could still fill a class.</p>
<p>Not sure of the intent of your last comment about my EFC.</p>
<p>In our state, a significant (>30%) of the students who graduate from public high school and who then matriculate at one of the state’s public colleges require remedial courses in either math, reading, or writing. It is terribly expensive to offer these classes at the college level, both for the schools and the students. It delays graduation (and if a student requires two or more remedial classes they’re more likely not to graduate within 6 years than to graduate) and increases student debt.</p>
<p>Having students return to high school for remedial courses – perhaps taught at night or in the summer or in a special class – would be much less expensive. Much, much less expensive.</p>
<p>Remedial courses are a huge problem. At my local community college, almost all of the classes offered are remedial. But I think that’s really the problem of the k-12 system that the colleges are trying to patch up.</p>
<p>For all concerned, it is very worthwhile to graduate #1 in respective HS class and opt for State school. Might end up with either full ride or full tuition Merit scholarships. It is also very worthwhile continue haveing straight "A"s in college and apply to all kind Merit scholarships, “Returning Students”, “Departmental”… research and make kids to apply, most of them do not which is even better for those who do, more $$ available. There are a lot of privately created Merit scholarships. You might end up paying nothing / close to nothing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isn’t how it works, however. If it were this simple, then the poorest people would all go to cc’s if at all, and the rich primarily to the elites and the private schools. Everyone in between would fall on more or less a straight line between what they could pay (with NO aid) and what the school costs. If Joe Poor wants to buy a car, the Mercedes dealer doesn’t determine how much extra money he “needs” to get a C-Class and then give it to him. Nor does the government subsidize his car-buying power. Nor is Joe going to get a discount (or possibly a free car) for being really, really smart. So no, not comparable.</p>
<p>Right, but the fact that HYP et al periodically offer “specials” to those who can’t afford HYP at their list price is irrelevant to anything. There are affordable college options in this country. Many places have comm colleges at a very low price. Every state has a state flagship that provides a decent education, and most states have directional state u’s. No, they aren’t HYP, but no one is “entitled” to be able to afford HYP. If HYP stopped offering aid tomorrow, and just took full-pricers, that would be unfortunate, but I don’t think there’s anything that “should” be done about that.</p>
<p>“Yes and no. I agree that education and cars are very different. However, I think the analogy is fair. You may want a Mercedes, but you can afford a Honda. You might want Harvard, but you can afford College Park. Both cars will get you the same place, you just might not have all the perks. As long as there are affordable options, education and cars are comparable.”
-This greatly depends on final goal. In case of Medical School, one needs the highest possible college GPA and MCAT score with the least costly UG to sustain paying for Med. School. Here is a starting point in your logic, then look at your list of colleges to determine which one will lead you to this goal. It is completely different story for English, Education, Law, Engineering…every proffession will have different choice. However in case of unlimited resources, existing connections and URM, again picture could be completely different.</p>
<p>Sigh - I’m still looking for all that famed money for URMs.</p>
<p>Economically, this comment makes sense. Right now, it’s the case of Robin Hood in our tuition bills.
Whoever is paying full freight is really paying for themselves and for another person who is on full scholarship. Whoever is getting full scholarship: where do you think the funds to cover your tuition comes from? Be grateful you got something for nothing. My kid is as smart as anyone getting a full-ride (and please… no need to tell me he’s just not smart enough to apply for scholarships in some sarcastic voice. That’s just shows your entitlement bias.)</p>
<p>Public schools generally cost less because there’s “economy of scale” (where the costs of goods is less because you buy in greater quantities). They also get substantial funds from taxpayers. The fact that CA is running out of money is because they haven’t charged enough tuition and taxpayers aren’t paying enough either. Compare their tuition to any other state and you’ll see it’s been a very good “deal”. Now they’re about to go bankrupt.</p>
<p>The biggest problem, as I see it, is that EVERYONE thinks they should get some form of scholarship. There’s that entitlement mentality that’s killing our system and jacking up the prices. Let’s face it, schools cost money to run (professor salaries, property, construction, etc.) including crazy high salaries to some professors who are paid as much as CEOs</p>
<p>The costs are out of hand because of the growing number of full-need students…</p>
<p>applicannot: aren’t you getting full ride? I didn’t understand your comment
Isn’t any $$$ considered “famed” money?</p>
<p>I’m getting a full need-based ride. I’m not getting a penny in scholarship money because I’m a URM. I was responding to the previous poster.</p>
<p>I’m getting plenty of money for being poor, and trust me, I’m not complaining. But everyone heralds URMs like there are billions of dollars in scholarship money out there for us. Believe it or not, there isn’t. There’s certainly some, but the exaggeration gets to an extremely annoying point.</p>
<p>The way I figure it, which might not be the way it’s figured at colleges, call it anything you like (scholarship $$$, full need-based ride, or money because you are an URM) it’s still money that allows you to attend college. This didn’t happen years ago:
Not too long ago, nobody gave you anything for being poor, especially a college education, worth $220,000 (and especially if you were an URM). Nowadays, it’s not exactly politically-correct to step up and declare you’re getting a full ride because you are URM, but what makes you think it didn’t “help”?</p>
<p>Can you imagine the storm if colleges start labeling scholarships based on being an URM? Ha! ($$ of merit scholarship, $$ because your EFC is 0, $$ for living in The Bronx, and $$ for being black. Oh gee, that would not be cool!)</p>
<p>I agree, it’s money that allows me to attend college. I have no reason to believe it “helped” because I had very strong application long before any supposed URM boost kicked in, and I would have qualified for just as much need-based aid if I had been white.</p>
<p>Quote:
"The problem is when affordable options disappear (read: 32% increases in UC costs). "
Bingo.<br>
Uhh, no. The Cal States are still available, as are community colleges. </p>
<p>BlueBayou – just because California has alternative choices doesn’t mean they’re available everywhere. In many states, community colleges cost as much as Cal States, without the resources of Cal States. The point I was responding to – was the fact that even the “cheaper” alternatives are becoming out-of-reach for many working and middle class families, if not in California, than in many other places.</p>
<p>And that’s a major problem.</p>
<p>"Brooklynborndad</p>
<p>It is my impression that all of these expensive schools receive applications from many more qualified students than they are able to actually enroll. Granted those numbers would probably decline if some students were required to pay more but it is likely they could still fill a class."</p>
<p>yes sir. They could still fill their classes. To do so they would have to accept students they would not otherwise accept - lower GPA’s, SAT’s, EC’s etc, etc. As the quality of the student body declined, their rankings would decrease, their reputations would decline, and they would become less desirable to the full freight applicants. Also as they graduated classes with lower quals going in, they would lower the economic status of their alumni network, impacting their future fundraising. </p>
<p>Now thats not necessarily an unfeasible strategy. there ARE third and fourth tier privates that manage to balance their books. But clearly the top 100 or so private schools in the country are attempting a different strategy. </p>
<p>The ones below the top 20 or so give need aid, and also merit aid, cause there ARE full freight kids who they don’t want to lose for all the reasons above. AFAICT they balance their need aid and merit aid carefully. If you are actually paying full freight to one of them, and have not gotten a merit scholarship, well you are clearly dispensable to them. </p>
<p>The tippy top schools, that do not offer merit aid, get quite enough full freight students without having to do anything for them, other than admit them. </p>
<p>“Not sure of the intent of your last comment about my EFC.”</p>
<p>You seemed to imply that the college affordability crisis, if that is what it is, is one that mainly effects people with no need based aid, who are paying more for the need based aid. I would beg to differ. At the income level to get a zero EFC, you can almost certainly afford to pay full freight. The problem that we discuss over and over again, is the family that has a much lower income, and applies to a college that promises to meet need. But when push comes to shove, “meeting need” means extending costlyprivate loans. </p>
<p>I am not as absolutist as some here about those loans, but I agree with them that that is the serious problem, not the issue of people who have “zero need”.</p>
<p>“Whoever is paying full freight is really paying for themselves and for another person who is on full scholarship. Whoever is getting full scholarship: where do you think the funds to cover your tuition comes from?”</p>
<p>somebody had better tell the alumini donors about this. </p>
<p>Do you really think 50k is significantly above the total operating cost per student?</p>
<p>You may want a Volvo with all kinds of neat safety options. You may need a loan for that, but can afford a beat up older car, tiny, with fewer safety options, for cash.</p>
<p>Somebody at Autos confidential tells you about the kid they know who drove an apparently unsafe jalopy, and they did just fine, and berates you for buying the Volvo. Without knowing a thing about how your kid drives, your local traffic, etc. They also tell you about someone who lost their house cause of car payments, and is now living in a tent. </p>
<p>They wont be there for your kids funeral, though.</p>
<p>as to the resentment of full-need kids: please! if a kid is getting a full need-based ride, then more power to them! they WORKED HARD for that $$, with very few advantages. look, if your kid can’t “make it” and they come from a privileged household, then that’s on them. no need to hate on kids whose families are poor and yet still managed to do very well in school despite probably receiving very little help–if any!-- by way of high-priced tutors, extracurriculars, test prep coaches, etc. it’s preposterous to suggest that a full-to-substantial need child shouldn’t receive any help (not to mention selfish).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you can draw a comparison, because attending a school that isn’t the tippy-top isn’t “dangerous” or “bad” the way an unsafe car is. It’s not as optimal, but it’s not actually a bad thing. </p>
<p>Some of you people also need to leave the Northeast every once in a while, and see that there are plenty of people who attend state flagships and go on and do just fine in life, whether “fine” is measured in dollars or just in having a nice, happy life.</p>
<p>Calimami</p>
<p>“they worked hard for that $$”</p>
<p>I disagree with you. They worked hard to get admitted, but the money came because their family couldn’t afford to pay the costs.</p>