<p>I would be appreciative if some of you would look at my thread in the parents' forum entitled "Choice between merit scholarship and need aid." All three colleges are what I now know to be what this board calls "Tier 1" colleges. None are LAC's. There is no backing up now. It is one of these three choices for me, and I can find absolutely nothing wrong with any of them.</p>
<p>bump.............</p>
<p>I just enjoyed reading this again - and I'm grateful to Bryozoan for finding this for me. (Thanks, Bry!) As many of us head into the admissions fray, I think this is a good reminder that there are other ways to approach the college ap process.</p>
<p>what a sad sad thread. there are some very stingy parents out there.</p>
<p>My thoughts exactly. I went to a school lower than my " stats' would have allowed. To this day I wonder if I made a mistake. This does not have anything to do with career options, I have always gotten the positions for which I have applied, it's about a once in a lifetime opportunity. Sorry, in my opinion if a student is qualified for tier 1 schools, free tuition at tier 3 & 4 is not worth it. They will forever wonder what if... BTW- DD is following that path with acceptances from 0 aid up to full ride. Her choice was not the full ride schools. I am proud of that decision.</p>
<p>And I completely disagree that they are "stingy" parents. As a single mother of five children with 4 children having already gone through the "app" process it's not about whether the parents want to spend that much on their children or whether they have regrets about their own college experience.</p>
<p>It is about the children/students and the choices they will be making about their futures. If those students choosing a "lower tier" school do so out of fiscal responsibility to their respective families or in consideration of their future debt they might be incurring it has nothing to do with "stingy" parents. Rather it has to do with students exploring their many options of financing, attending and acquiring a college education, no matter where that may be.</p>
<p>I am proud that my children made wise, mature and thoughtful choices to not expect or anticipate putting financial pressure on our family. They did not apply ED for those reasons, they applied to many schools, examined the schools with regards to fit, educational value and cost. And they picked accordingly. And no, none of mine turned down a full-ride for a more expensive option.</p>
<p>I am proud of those decisions. And the educations they have obtained/obtaining regardless of their "tier" status.</p>
<p>Kat</p>
<p>katwkittens, my remark did not apply to you because in your situation the decision was not made by the parents! unlike the OP...</p>
<p>Since financial aid levels the playing field for most students. I agree fiscal responsibility is an important skill to learn and college financing is an excellent place to start. There is nothing wrong with a student choosing to work and incur loans to make the right situation work for them. If EFC is high I do believe the parents have a responsibility to accept some of the burden. If EFC is low i would equally expect the student to assume most of the burden. That way the student can go to their best fit school without any part of the family being excessively burdened. There is just something unsettling about "free" education and the work ethic that is absent in such a situation.</p>
<p>Why would you think that a person who earns a full ride is absent of a work ethic? It would appear that a student has worked extremely hard to be in such a position to be offered a full ride. Four years of intense work, focus, and sacrifice with the remote possibility of being rewarded with merit monies. Pretty impressive that a kid can stay the course for 4 years (we are talking about a 14-17 yr. old) with a hope, but no guarantee, of reaping future merit awards. Seems like a helluva work ethic to me.</p>
<p>akdaddy - i am likely not in a great position to comment because I bit the bullet and went to schools in part because of their brand name and ranking. In any event, I think a better way to put it is that top tier schools allow for a greater margin of error - that and you really do learn to generally compete against the best and brightest. A great student, lets say, decides to go to University of Louisville (and I am not picking on Louisville but it fits the profile of a 4th tier school as a sports team with a school attached) and certainly can acheive great things. But they are not going to have peers there that will push and challenge them nearly to the same degree as if they were at top tier school, and they will have to work harder at getting the best opportunities these schools can offer. Can it be done? Sure - but it is not an experience where a student can float through the first two years getting passable "B"'s and a few "A" s with the luxury (and really no penalty) of deciding to focus more particularly in the last two years. If one wants to maximize opportunity at a 3rd or 4th tier school, it pays to be a go-getter, period, right from the start. Can one put a price tag on this greater margin for error, or susceptibility to flexibility? Likely not. But it does depend on the person, and parents while sensibly most often limit their investing to their resources and comfort zone, also have to measure the value of any investment against the type of kid they have. Personally, I needed stimulation and competition to study. If I had it, I did well. If I didn't, I floated by. I would have not become well educated at a 3rd or 4th tier place - my own fault, to be sure - but I sure as heck knew I was wired that way. Finances were an issue - in fact I had zero parental support - but I went to school on a full athletic scholarship (national champion in my sport so facts are a little extreme) and grad school on academic merit, so not sure that my own background is helpful. But even amidst my unusual experience, I knew myself and my limitations. </p>
<p>And above all, situations in the factual extreme demand their own treatment. If a kid is absolutely set on being a physics whiz, and has the extreme kind of talent it demands and is fairly clear he or she wants it to be their life's work, then if they get into Cal Tech or MIT they just "have" to go. It is a numbers game - and in a highly competitive field with small numbers of opportunities- it just looms as a given. This is not to say that someone from Long Beach State couldn't succeed, but the statistics just don't bear out. But again, these factual situations are limited. Most should study the trade-off between finances and brand name, and have realistic sense of self and their capabilities.</p>
<p>Why would you think that a person who earns a full ride is absent of a work ethic? (Can't get the quote to work. LOL. )</p>
<p>ConanFan, I don't think ak is saying the kid doesn't have a work ethic. I think he's saying the parent doesn't. </p>
<p>I can't stay. I've really got to go - my "soaps" are on and I still need to go e-bay my foodstamps for some crack cash and the Christian Mission Food Pantry closes early today. Working my fingers to the bone. ;)</p>
<p>I agree with everyone (and that's unusual!)</p>
<p>I think the message to be derived here is that you have to know your kid; your kid has to have some self-knowledge in order to make good choices, and as a family, you all have to set down the ground rules and sort through the often competing priorities.</p>
<p>I know kids whose parents sacrificed everything to send them to a top tier school when it seemed clear to everyone who knew the kid that this was someone who would have thrived in a paper bag with no air... that's how much drive and talent the kid had. I know kids whose parents cared about education.... as long as someone else was paying for it.... who ended up in third and fourth tier schools where their minds went to jello by the end of the first year. And of course.... most situations are not as clear cut and require more nuanced decision making.</p>
<p>I will say that as full freight payers, in our experience, it ain't just a brand. That's not to say you should sacrifice your health and retirement and go without health insurance to pay for one... but for all the cynics who claim it's just marketing and fancy brochures, go spend a few hours in a lab at MIT with undergrads and I dare you to come out and claim they're just "selling" an elite experience.</p>
<p>Our son has had research opportunities in both science and humanities at MIT with no real qualifications for either except that he stayed after the lecture when the professors announced that they had funding for undergrad research. He was taught and mentored by "famous" professors who allegedly ignore undergrads; he was treated on the same footing as the grad students in the department; he got a summer job when a professor picked up the phone, and has been the beneficiary of tons of opportunities to which you cannot put a price tag.</p>
<p>He is not a whiz.... in fact, he's probably pretty average by MIT standards. However, he is a kid who is fundamentally lazy but who worked his butt off to do well, and is likely the kid who would have chosen partying as a major had he been at a place where the other students weren't as inspiring and supportive of academics.</p>
<p>What will this mean down the road? I have no idea. But we don't worry about him too much anymore. He's seen what he's capable of doing when he's challenged and thrown into the deep end of the pool. We didn't see any merit opportunities that would have provided that experience for him.</p>
<p>Blossom, I agree with you.</p>
<p>I'm sure that many of the elite privates have a lot to offer, but to ridicule lower tier schools without having ever attended them is arrogant, even ignorant. </p>
<p>It's not so much where you go, but what you do when you get there.</p>
<p>Pearl, no ridicule at all; there are many, many fine students at hundreds of colleges. My point was that parents and kids need to be realistic and even a little cynical about what they hear.... lower tier schools like to pretend they're being philanthropic with their merit money when in fact it's part of a well-crafted enrollment strategy. If they're paying big bucks, there's a reason they want your kid. Higher tier schools like to pretend that parents don't have to worry about money... as if you could find $40K in the sofa cushions if only you'd try harder. There are many parents who can't pay the EFC for lots of legitimate reasons, and it doesn't make them criminals to seek out a better value for their educational buck.</p>
<p>As I said earlier... it depends on the kid, his/her needs, the family situation, and so forth. However, it also strikes me as absurd for parents to pretend that the differences in institutions are all subtle, trivial, or the concoction of a giant marketing machine designed to paint top schools as "elite" when in fact, they're just the same as every other school. I can't speak to every institution, but there are very real differences among colleges.</p>
<p>There are lower tier schools who suffer in the rankings due to an aging physical plant or a perceived "bad" location. If your kid doesn't care about those things, you could get a fine, or even a superior education at one of those schools. There are lower tier schools sponsered by a particular religious denomination-- again, could be a wonderful opportunity for your kid. There are lots of these schools which were formerly state teacher's colleges, and if your kid is planning a career in K-12 education or educational administration, many of them do a better job getting your kid certified and ready for employment than other, higher ranked schools.</p>
<p>However, there are also schools which tend not to show up on lists of "top schools" for some reasons related directly to their educational mission. If your kid wants to study engineering at a lower ranked school which hasn't had the money to spend on facilities or faculty in the last 20 years, that education may not be such a bargain by the end even if you don't pay much for it. If your kid is studying anthropology at a school where half the department is on sabbatical for his or her senior year and the rest are all adjuncts or part-time, could be tough for your kid to complete a senior thesis or research project. If your kid is a music major at a place without the resources to field the orchestras, quartets, jazz bands, and other opportunities which are really important to one's education, then your kid will end up playing catch-up after graduation to get exposure to these performance opportunities.</p>
<p>So-- no diss intended... just know what kind of a bargain you are getting before you sign on the dotted line.</p>
<p>"If your kid wants to study engineering at a lower ranked school which hasn't had the money to spend on facilities or faculty in the last 20 years, that education may not be such a bargain by the end even if you don't pay much for it. If your kid is studying anthropology at a school where half the department is on sabbatical for his or her senior year and the rest are all adjuncts or part-time, could be tough for your kid to complete a senior thesis or research project. If your kid is a music major at a place without the resources to field the orchestras, quartets, jazz bands, and other opportunities which are really important to one's education, then your kid will end up playing catch-up after graduation to get exposure to these performance opportunities."</p>
<p>The pearl of wisdom embedded here is to carefully check out departments, faculty, majors, etc. at whatever school one is considering. For example UChicago does not really offer performance arts degrees nor a business or engineering degree. And, it is not unusual for faculty to go on leave's or sabbaticals at the so-called top schools as well.</p>
<p>People paint with such broad brushes sometimes. Many 3rd and 4th tier schools have outstanding individual departments or colleges inside that rival the top 50. The overall quality of the University may be lower than many but that one department is a star and the school puts resources into it as its flagship. USNEWS rankings are a very loose guide and that is all they are.</p>
<p>I will say I asked my boys to look at the average GPA and ACT/SAT scores of a school, and if possible an individual college. I asked that at least 25% - 30% of the students are in their test score range at a minimum. If, for example, only 3% of the student body is over 30 on the ACT then maybe we need to look elsewhere.</p>
<p>I have a DD at a "top-tier" U where opportunities abound, professors are collegial and ready to mentor you at the drop of a hat, and FA package is doable - BUT, DS, kid #2, slightly introverted, very laid-back, likes lots of personal time (playing computer games), wants to be anonymous, likes big lectures, would take a mulitiple choice test over an essay test any day, likes "regular kids", is not passionate or driven about academics, enjoys being one of the "brighter" kids in school, loves football and watching sports, wants to graduate with NO personal loans, etc. etc. -- he would fit perfectly in the honor college of a big state U - and the merit aid would enable him to graduate w/no loans and would be affordable to us. Both my kids are equally bright - but they don't want the same things, and don't thrive in the same environments. Call me "stingy", call it "sad" - but, amongst other schools, DS will be applying to some big state U's where a 1490, and a top 2% class rank may lead to merit aid!</p>
<p>Great post anxiousmom. I love that you have seen both sides of the coin with your kids. Your kids are lucky to have a mom that respects them for their individual styles. Good luck to both of them!</p>
<p>That's the real point isn't it. As I so ineloquently tried to suggest. It is the fit between your child and the school first, you your child and reality second and you your child and financial agreement third. Choosing a school solely on "name' or merit aid might, emphasize might, lead to a bad choice. Think the situation through carefully before jumping at the "good deal'.</p>