<p>Well, I believe that the differences between UT-Austin or ASU versus a school with a COA above 50,000 per year might take various forms. Just compare the room and board (on a personal quality of life index) among the schools. Is it better to “pay” a bit more at a school that guarantees four years of housing versus one that forces students to look off-campus for substandard lodging. Again, how do 4 years at Stanford compare to say … the lodging possibilities in Berkeley? Add the overcrowding and guidance issues, and you might find out that a number of added dimensions at schools that devote larger resources to their students during their years in college. </p>
<p>As far as quality of education, that is something that might be in the eye of the beholder as some do not seem to have a problem with schools that are academic factories that rely on massive number of graduate students to shore up the reduced teaching performance and loads of a faculty whose focus is more researching than teaching.</p>
<p>And, fwiw, a conversation that solely looks at the cases of zero EFC students misses the boat. For the overwhelming majority of applicants and their families, the conversation is really not about the value of spending 4 to 10,000 per year on a college education. And, as an additional FYI, I seriously doubt that the net cost for low EFC students is lower at the less generous schools, at least when apples are compared to apples.</p>