@Aroundhere-- I don’t think companies care about “cool” - they care about rigor, work ethic, intellectual capacity, leadership, maturity. In some cases, that translates into a certain type of elitism- you aren’t getting a job at DE Shaw to develop new financial instruments with a 3.0 in math from University of New Haven. But that elitism is born out by their assessment processes- they have their own proprietary tests and gatekeeping tools- and if most math students fail the test year after year, but kids from CMU and CalTech and MIT and U Chicago pass them- only an idiot would suggest that the company should continue to interview the B students from U New Haven (a fine college for many things- but not a particularly rigorous program in math).
Most college students underestimate the importance of rigor. You can be a psych major and take a watered down “statistics for the social sciences” which is basically how to interpret a graph and why correlation is not causation… or you can be a psych major and really learn quantitative research methods. You can study poli sci and load up on a lot of “themed” courses- Anarchy and Marxism, The sociology of revolution-- or you can combine those themed courses with econ, a quantitatively rigorous poli sci class- like one which teaches you how to use census data to predict how voters will respond to a ballot measure to increase property taxes.
A kid interviewing for an entry level management job who can use census data in a predictive fashion (or to try and explain why the ballot measure in Winnetka failed, or why it was successful in Needham, MA but failed in Santa Barbara CA even though the demographics appear to be similar-- that’s a kid I can use in a bunch of different ways. Fungible skills. I don’t care about the content knowledge (except that our senior leadership like to hire kids who have read books, are interesting people.) But college has taught them how to think.
@ChoatieMom That you thought your reply to my post (a portion of which you quoted) was in any way responsive is why I posted it. Now can we have some cake?
@tk21769 My exact point. The loans you sited are student loans, not parent loans.
The majority of the cost burden falls on the parent’s, so only advertising the student’s portion of loans is misleading. IMHO! For example, my daughter got into Boston College. She was offered 6k/yr in combined work study/student loans. The annual cost is just over 71k. Our family contribution is therefore 65k/yr (without increases). 260k over 4 yrs. My 200k loan amount was an estimate, assuming the parent’s can afford a partial amount. Of course that amount varies depending on everyone’s financial circumstance, which is why reporting the statistic would be interesting. The student debit that is advertised also varies due to circumstance, so the variances shouldn’t be an issue in determining whether or not to report all the statistics/facts. (The difference between reporting statistics and advertising - one is specifically spun to look or sound attractive.)
I believe the colleges use the student debit as an advertising tool, to distract from tuition costs and make the school seem affordable. While the total costs are clear on each website, and a NPC is available, we as parents are never sure until the student has applied what the cost will be - whether or not the school will offer need based or merit aid. Advertising the total student debit gives a false impression that the school’s financial packages are much more generous, and the total costs listed on the website is just a mere sticker price, not to be concerned about. Perhaps I am just naive.
The bottom line is all these stats are great but one does not really know anything until they open the envelope and look at what their child received. That is the time when the family has to look at the available funds and try to figure out how to make it happen. I think many parents just cannot say no and will borrow the money to make their child happy since they worked so hard in HS and deserve it. This is what all the stats miss.
"I find my situation particularly frustrating because my initial understanding of what a top student is was wrong. The reality that I found was only the very top get the good merit scholarships. Then a pretty substantial drop off. I did not understand when I first started this journey that they threw kids into such rigid baskets. You either qualify for a certain scholarship or you do not. I thought it was a more graduated scale as opposed to a step/cliff scale. I know this is totally my ignorance and I have since learned the truth. "
@MassDaD68 this made me curious. If you knew this sooner, would you consider to “invest” $$ into tutoring your son to bring his scores and stats into the higher basket?
Gratefulmama’s daughter is also not included in the stats at BC for kids receiving or not receiving aid, because her daughter cannot afford to attend. If her daughter had received the average aid award, she would have. Schools are happy to report the percent of students receiving aid that attend, but not the percentage of accepted students that were not offered aid and thus did not attend.
No doubt schools do not want to publish that info. But its also tough to know. If someone who did not get aid does not enroll, how do you know it was because of the lack of aid? May well be the case that had they been given the award, they would still have enrolled somewhere else.
@mycupoftea Yes. I would have pushed the SAT harder knowing what I know now. If he could have boosted his score above 1450 I think he would have gotten better aid packages. I would have invested in a proper SAT review class. I honestly felt his score was good. Boy was I wrong.
Yes he is. I posted earlier in this thread that we were (painfully) full-pay for boarding school at college rates ($225K for high school). We shared the same thought process as the OP, only four years earlier.
@mycupoftea - My early apologies for adding my two cents on a question not directed at me. Based on my experience, I think tutoring makes sense if your stats are low or borderline as a means to competitively apply. However, I would not recommend tutoring with the goal of getting merit scholarships; that would be a gamble and tutoring can get very expensive.
My D has great stats - 4.0UW, 4.7W, 33act (34 super score). She has taken an unusually difficult path, studying for a French diploma, highly rigorous and acknowledged diploma - even though she is not French and both parent’s only speak English. She also has extensive EC’s, including leadership and top student in her graduating class. What could she gain from tutoring? Possibly a perfect 36 act which still wouldn’t guarantee the scholarship. The scholarships are given in limited amounts. For example BC offers approx 25 - even if they have 75 perfect stat applications. I believe that’s where the essays and EC’s carry a lot of weight, which is an uncontrolled variable in the process.
Yes, small, less known universities are willing to offer scholarships to these students, but not many offer full tuition, so the costs end up in line with the public in-state tuition. In our case that’s CA, where going to UCLA or Berkeley is more attractive of an option than a small private school, such as Willamette. (I think Willamette is probably a great school, but given the options for the same costs, I doubt many would choose it over UCLA.)
While my D had high hopes of going out of state, it is becoming more clear that our public in state schools seem to be the best option.
Thanks @MassDaD68 I’ve seen a lot of parents chastised on this board for pressing their kids to prep for standardized tests 'cause these tests are ‘supposed’ to reflect natural abilities and aptitude (not to mention the dreaded issue of tiger parenting 8-| ) I hope your story will give these parents a different perspective and much needed support
“I would not recommend tutoring with the goal of getting merit scholarships; that would be a gamble and tutoring can get very expensive.”
@gratefulmama Yes, I see you point from financial perspective. I also understand that it may be very difficult to raise test scores significantly. However, some posters also seem to consider this a moral issue, which I find quite odd.
@gratefulmama I do see your point, if your child can get in to a top tier UC. With a 4.7gpa your odds are good, for my D with a weighted 4.0, UW 3.6, amazing EC’s… we’ll be lucky if she can get into Irvine or Davis… I think Santa Cruz and down are the only safeties. When comparing those UC’s with the oos privates she’s already been accepted to with considerable merit, the private schools stack up very favorably with what they have to offer for the same money.
I believe that if my son had a SAT of over 1450 he would have qualified for larger scholarships in excess of an additional $5k per year. A $20K savings that would easily cover the $1k or so cost of an SAT prep course. It would have been money well spent. …If only I knew then what I know now.
Kids only get one shot at the apple here. One should do whatever you can to boost the score. My son jokes about the movie line in Gravity. it takes two numbers to figure my pants size but only one number to plan my daughters future. It is so true. Our children are only numbers. They are judged on the SAT or ACT.
@mycupoftea - moral issue? Interesting. We fully anticipated prep courses ourselves. We went to one tutoring service, paid $100 for them to give her a fully timed practice SAT and ACT, to see which test she performed the best, and get a base score. She scored a 30 on the practice ACT in their center (I can’t remember the SAT practice score but it was significantly lower.) The tutoring center recommended 35-48 hours of tutoring (2xs/wk, 2 hrs a session), at $100/hr to raise her score up to 3 points. ($3500-$4800). Before enrolling in expensive courses, we decided to have her take the real ACT in October of her junior year. Guess what? She scored a 32. She took the test again in June (still no courses) and got a 33.
I’m sure taking 4 hours a week of tutoring would have increased the score further, but I’m not convinced we would see the additional benefit on her financial packages. I also question these test centers “practice tests”. Could they have a higher percentage of difficult questions on their practice exams, artificially deflating the scores, suggesting more hours of tutoring needed? Beware!
My younger D is a freshman in high school. So far she is getting very good grades but doesn’t seem quite as academic as my older D. When the time come for D2, she may need tutoring for the standardize tests. Again, purely with the goal of providing her with the stats to get accepted and have choices; not scholarships.
@MassDaD68 - I think it depends on where your S is applying. Yes some schools would offer more for higher scores, but not the schools my D is applying. The 4 schools she applied that offer merit set a limited number and that’s it. Test scores are only a portion of the battle. It is like playing the lottery.
All of us are fortunate to have kids that have the drive and intelligence to continue with their education. By no means do I want to complain. While I find the financial aspects a harsh reality, I am grateful to have such problems.
@socalmom007 - That makes sense. I just read on the UCLA acceptance thread from last year that a kid got into UCLA with a 23ACT! So you never know. If your D has great EC’s and writes great essays, anything is possible. Also, the private oos schools offer small class sizes which can also make them more attractive if costs are the same.
@gratefulmama Essays are strong, 20+ hour a week EC all the way through HS with many awards and championships… but, the UC’s are a tough admit. I think she “could” get into UCI or UCD, probably won’t get into UCSD or UCSB, most definitely won’t get into UCB or UCLA… that’s where return on investment comes into play. Is UCLA worth 33k cash full pay? Yes. Is UCR, UCM, or even UCSC worth 33k a year? I don’t know. Not compared with many excellent private schools options at the same net cost. As a California resident it upsets me that our flagship system isn’t accessible to most of our kids. Other states retain 80% of their spots for instate applicants, we have no such mandate, and so 40% percent of students are from out of state and our top UC’s require ivy level stats.
My son took the PSAT as a sophomore in October and did pretty (not fabulous) well but guess at the end of the reading and writing sections. I plan to begin to review with him missed questions and I’m thinking that he may be a better candidate for the ACT as his strength is in science. I watched a Kaplan webinar where the reviewer the differences and it was pretty good. If it seems he’s ready, I may have him take it this fall just as a trial run. I figure he’ll be in test mode because of the PSAT. Why pay for a trial run at a test company when he can take the real thing?? Maybe there’s a good answer for that.
@MAandMEmom Isn’t the NMF based on the PSAT? That is another one of those…if I knew then what I know now. Having your child prepare properly for the PSAT will pay huge dividends if he/she becomes a NMF. I felt the PSAT was a dry run for the SAT. Boy was I wrong. I learned so much during this first process and it makes me sad that I was so ignorant.
