<p>Being expensive is never a bad thing for a luxury brand.</p>
<p>^Too bad the actual luxury brands are need-blind and strive to make their education affordable to all.</p>
<p>Maybe every school should admit everyone and everyone pay the same rate…;)</p>
<p>I have a problem with people thinking they should be given FA to attend a school they can’t afford…i’d love to choose ANY school for my children,but realize we can’t afford Many of the top cost school they want…</p>
<p>
If these schools weren’t in NY, Boston, New Orleans, etc. they would not be nearly as expensive.</p>
<p>Six of the ten schools are Jesuit Universities. What does that mean? IDK - just caught my eye. ;)</p>
<p>I’m confused on how CNN came up with their list - I got different schools when I tried using the College Compatibility search tool…</p>
<p>…never mind. I missed the part on them only including schools with undergrad enrollment of 5000 or more ;)</p>
<p>Without question location plays a factor in tuition costs,particularly big city institutions…That said, those schools mentioned are significantly better then middle of nowhere schleppy U</p>
<p>The university itself would be as great as it is in the city if it were in a more suburban area, and cost loads less. And although the city “offers numerous opportunities” and even if “New York City is your campus”, it remains a luxury.</p>
<p>Just like living in a nice apartment in NYC as opposed to a bigger, but cheaper, house in the suburbs is a luxury.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In OUR house, we like to get the best possible value for our money, and if one can obtain a quality education for $10,000 at one school and an equal quality education for $30,000 at another school, we’ll go with the less costly alternative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have any objective evidence to back that up?</p>
<p>^^ +1</p>
<p>(10 char)</p>
<p>He doesn’t, because they’re not. In fact, given two random universities–one in the “middle of nowhere” and the other in NYC, I’d without a doubt pick the one in the middle of nowhere. I love the city, but I know it is a luxury. And regardless of the price, I know the value at a suburban university is much better.</p>
<p>Today’s LA Times had a letter to the editor from a parent whose high-stat kid was denied from the more selective UCs. The daughter received a full-tuition scholarship for NYU, so she’s going there for less than it would cost for her to go to a UC in-state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ranking here isn’t over rack rate, but over average COA. </p>
<p>D1 was an NMF, and could’ve gone to NEU with an automatic full-tuition scholarship. Instead, she’s heading “down the road” to the school that doesn’t offer merit aid. She’s fortunate enough to have the choice. Other full-pay families might opt for Northeastern over Tufts as being far more affordable. A student looking for substantial financial need-based aid would statistically do better at Tufts than at Northeastern, but can’t know that for sure until the FA package arrives.</p>
<p>Not to dispute the fact that colleges are expensive, but something about the list and study leaves me wondering if it’s flawed somehow. So today, there is a posting on Today Money website that Bates college is not happy about being #1 on the list since not all schools include room and board, while they do. How can they compare true cost when the criteria is not the same throughout the survey?</p>
<p>Here’s the link (I hope I post it correctly)</p>
<p>[Bates</a> College isn’t happy about this top ranking - money - TODAY.com](<a href=“http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43686677/ns/business-personal_finance/]Bates”>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43686677/ns/business-personal_finance/)</p>
<p>As a Northeastern mom all I can say is “ouch.” </p>
<p>In our case, my son is attending Northeastern on the NMF full tuition scholarship. However, he turned down higher ranking schools that either also offered very generous scholarships or were in-state. We’re always talking about “fit” here and that’s what it came down to for him. </p>
<p>He was also impressed with the fact that Northeastern consistently ranks as the #1 or #2 school in co-ops/internships and job placement. He liked that Northeastern didn’t shy away from the fact that they are preparing you for a career. And, yes, he loves the location. </p>
<p>Even when parents have the money to pay full fare, for some kids the better college isn’t the one down the road, it’s Northeastern. Go, Huskies!</p>
<p>From the linked article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So we’re not going to release the information that would allow a comparison more favorable to ourselves, then complain when that comparison isn’t made?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Value is in the eye of the beholder, and includes cost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do they really expect us to believe that one of the top LACs in the country can’t hire an accountant? Do they really expect us to believe that their Development office has no idea what it costs to build a dorm (they are likely offering naming rights to them). Sheesh, their spin is worse than…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can promise you that the bubble won’t burst for at least another two years, which is how many years of college tuition I have left to pay, LOL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it has shortcomings. </p>
<p>First, though, I have no sympathy for Bates’ argument; it’s one of a handful of schools that deliberately impair transparency by blending a bunch of charges for very different services into a single “comprehensive fee.” I suspect, though I’m not certain, that they may be doing this to manipulate their US News rankings, which reward them for higher “expenditures per student,” but that’s not supposed to include room & board. But if they just charge a single comprehensive fee and can get away with saying all that money’s going toward the unified educational experience, then their expenditures per student go up, and so do their US News rankings.</p>
<p>That aside, though, here are my problems with the new government “affordability and transparency” tool. First, it only lists schools at the extremes; I don’t believe there’s any way to compare schools in the middle, i.e., the vast majority of schools. Second, as a number of posters have already pointed out, no one much cares what the average net COA is; what they care about is their own bottom line, and the average net COA doesn’t tell them anything about that. You could have a school with a high average net COA just because a large percentage of its students had high EFCs, even though that school was meeting 100% of need. You could have a school with a low average net COA that was coming nowhere close to meeting 100% of need for most of its students. I think just a simple table showing actual COA, % of students getting need based FA, % of students getting merit awards, and average percent of financial need met would be much more informative and transparent.</p>
<p>Regarding NYU: I think it’s a fine school and a good choice for many people, but probably the main reason it makes this list is that it meets, on average, only 65% of need for those enrolled students it determines have financial need, by far the lowest percentage of any US News top-50 ranked private university. And partly as a consequence of that, its students graduate with a higher average debt burden—$33,487 for 2009 graduates—than most other top-50 universities, public or private. It is, as someone said, affordable for those who can afford it, but those with financial need should be aware when applying that there’s a pretty good chance you’ll be “gapped” by NYU, so don’t get your hopes up.</p>