<p>I grew up in one of those top-50 states. All four of the kids in my family went to private schools on the east coast. UIUC would have been TOTALLY wrong for all four of us. Gigantic, middle of nowhere surrounded by corn, huge sports atmosphere, biggest Greek system in the world, 90% in-state, best programs are engineering, architecture, and computer science (3 out of our 4 were humanities majors). Talk about bad fit.</p>
<p>My mother spent one year at UIUC before transferring to U Chicago. It was not a good experience for her. I honestly think that if worst had come to worst, she'd have sold the house to pay for private college before she'd have sent a daughter there. Berkeley or William & Mary would have been a very different story.</p>
<p>No top 50 in my state, and neither of my sons even applied to in-state colleges. Each wanted a chance to see another part of the country and were looking for very particular things in college, which they could not find in-state. My first son wanted a combination of engineering and Japanese. He ended up at a top 50 college that guarantees to meet need and did so quite nicely, so we spent no more there than we would have at a state U. (It was still a stretch at times, but any college would have been.) </p>
<p>Second son had a specialized need--trumpet performance--and could not find the quality he needed in-state. For him, we are paying more than we can easily afford, but we are managing so far, and it is worth it to us, as we see the incredible growth he is making in the area he hopes will be his career.</p>
<p>So we, too, find that fit is the most important thing, although finances are also quite important. The ranking of a college is not nearly as important as finding one that fits the student.</p>
<p>Bookworm, I'm in complete agreement with you about the benefits of MIT. Except for where you say his education will be practical AND theoretical. MIT is notorious for its lack of practical education---the idea being that if you understand the theory, practicality follows, and that the other way round leaves you with greater limitations.</p>
<p>We have one of the better rated state schools in our state (Chapel Hill). However, none of my 3 kids were interested in the slightest in attending. One went to Elon where he could be in small classes and profs actually required you to attend (ADD kid). One went to a small private in VA in order to get a special major---equine science. The third decided on Wake--wanted small classes, the opportunity to know professors, no TAs, still ACC sports:), and didn't want to be in a school where most from his high school attended (out of top 10% students). I would probably not spend money on OOS tuition, but to pay more for more personal instruction we feel it has been worth it.</p>
<p>"We have 2 public schools in the top 50: UVa and the College of William and Mary. D thought UVa was much too big and she didn't want to have large lecture hall classes for GE reqs. She did like William and Mary but ultimately she opted for Washington and Lee University. </p>
<p>Curmudgeon Motherdear, did she pay more (if that's not too personal)? I think that's what the OP is looking for (but I could be VERY wrong ) , that and then why did she/you pay more (or what did she/you pay more for at W&L)? </p>
<p>Oh, and congrats for having the good sense to be in Virginia when college time came. It was nice to have those two in the bag, I'm sure. LOL. "</p>
<p>We are paying for everything at Washington and Lee as our EFC is ridiculously high so it is about $42 vs $16 for total costs. VA residents who attend private c/u's in VA qualify for the VA TAG grant which will decrease the cost by about $2700. She has little local scholarships but nothing major.</p>
<p>We are willing to pay for private education because W&L is such a good fit for her. She's been in a large public high school with 30 kids in her AP classes and she's been in a smaller class setting (no more than 16) when she worked on the Hill as a junior. D likes the academic excellence that W&L can offer as well as the strong alumni network. She also likes the social atmosphere of the school as well. D also will be competing on an intercollegiate team, something not possible at a D1 school for her.</p>
<p>Both my H's and my own family sent their kids to private colleges. It's something we always considered doing for our own if desired. One thing I did not like at my own alma mater (private research-based uni) were the large lectures combined with foreign grad students as TAs.</p>
<p>In terms of being lucky for VA residency, we can thank the DOD for that. We did have to jump through hoops to get the in-state residency designation for her since my H is active-duty.</p>
<p>I'm in complete agreement with bookworm on MIT as well. MIT and Reed are two schools that in my opinion provide something that you CAN'T get at a competitive, well regarded state school.</p>
<p>For the purposes of this discussion, I think we have to leave a variable like "fit" off the table. You can't quantify "fit." Lots of families place a higher value on something like that, some families have kids who will be happy anywhere, so "fit" is less important, and some families can't afford to indulge personal preferences--just getting the kid educated will be enough of a stretch financially (again I'm thinking of situations like the young woman who was somehow so fixated on NYU even though her family was low income).</p>
<p>I'm musing here--have we (this generation of parents) gone too far down the path of worrying about "fit" to the detriment of other, very real factors, like lifetime indebtedness or educational rigor or independence? I mean, all of the kids who have choices about the college they attend managed to do very well in high school, and most of them didn't have the luxury of selecting a high school based on "fit." They went to one of the available choices and made it work for them. When I was growing up we worried about "fit" to the extent of picking the state school that offered the program we wanted (agriculture and engineering was only offered at one place back then) and whether our families or we could afford to pay living expenses. If the additional expense of room and board was too much, then we went to the local commuter school. Going away to college, even in state, was somewhat of a sacrifice for all involved, and we felt privileged to be at the flagship state school.</p>
<p>I'm sure CC is a skewed sample, but I've observed with my kids and their friends that the opportunity to attend this state's flagship school is a privilege--to them it is a given, or even somewhat of a letdown since expectations now are so much higher. Sometimes that attitude bothers me a bit.</p>
<p>But doesn't fit include educational rigor? It was the #1 criterion for my S. As for lifetime indebtedness, if the choice were between attending college and not attending college because of financial limitations, of course, I would go for the top 50 state U (which, I notice leaves out my state U) and even the non-top 50 state U.
But while we will be paying off my Ss' educational loans until we retire, we are all living comfortably off nonetheless.
As for independence, what does it mean? Students from families of limited means are more likely to live at home and commute. My kid attends a college that is within walking distance from our home; but it wasn't mom's cooking or skills at operating the washing machine that guided his choice and led him to turn down a college on the other side of the US: it was the weather.</p>
<p>I believe I'm more generous with my S because I was so careful of spending my parents' money. I went to Honors program at a state U, rather than a 7-sister college, to save $2200. I went grad school rather than med school and never borrowed (6 y NIMH grant). I regret both choices.
My S wanted a U with a specialized course of study. He wanted peers (& a g/f) that shared his interests, not just in academics, but anime, film, sci-fi writing, etc. The state U, even the Honors program, would have been a repeat of HS.
What I do notice is that the best state U is getting more selective. MANY of my friends' children are atending other state schools. State professional schools are far more willing to accept UGs from state colleges than those who left.</p>
<p>None. We couldn't have afforded it, and wouldn't have co-signed for the loans."</p>
<p>We are absolutely delighted with my d's education. Paid research assistantship in the first two years. Now fluent in Italian, and spending all of next year in Florence. Great housing, fine professors, good food (she now cooks herself), made friends. Lots of music. I imagine similar could have happened at 50 other places. We visited Reed, I taught as a grad student at Chicago - I know the arguments (though as you know, I think the core at Scripps is superior to Chicago's or Columbia's, for what that's worth.)</p>
<p>None of them in my mind would have been worth a $108,000 cost differential over the state u. None. Now for us, it is academic, as we wouldn't have had the $108,000 (and would barely have been able to afford the state u.) But if I had the extra $108,000 (but no more - if you've got lots of money to burn, the question is a non-starter), I can buy a lot more in the way of education than the "value-added" between an Ivy or a prestige LAC and the state university.</p>
<p>I made the same argument for not sending S to a private school. The difference between you and me, though, is that I did have the money to spend on private school had I wanted to do so. I used a very little of that money on enriching his public school education. The savings I realized went toward his college education.</p>
<p>But the argument about saving $108k on college tuition is spurious if you do not have the money to spend in the first place. It's not money in your pocket which you can allocate differently. It's money that you do not have and will not have. Your D is attending Smith, with all the advantages this confers on her, thanks to scholarships that come with the Smith admittance. The free or nearly free tuition, room and board would disappear if she did not attend Smith.</p>
<p>Now, she could attend your state school also free or almost free; she could receive some of the advantages she is enjoying at Smith. But you would not have $108k to spend on her enrichment. So, you are right, your argument is academic.</p>
<p>Of course, you could borrow money to enrol her in more classes than would be available at your state school. It would amount to year-round college; it would not change the size of classes, make the TAs disappear or speak better English or be more experienced (I recall your own experience-based dislike of TAS); it would not improve the labs.
But then, if you have to borrow money, wouldn't it make more sense to enrol your child in a school that has more of what you want in the first place?</p>
<p>"Now, she could attend your state school also free or almost free; she could receive some of the advantages she is enjoying at Smith. But you would not have $108k to spend on her enrichment. So, you are right, your argument is academic."</p>
<p>Absolutely correct. The argument only holds if 1) I have the $180k to spend; 2) I receive no aid either at the state school or at the prestige one; 3) I don't have extra money ABOVE the $180k that I would be willing to spend on enrichment; and 4) That I would be willing to spend the $108k savings on enrichment - (and I've provided long lists in the past on what I might spend it, including in the sciences, on on graduate/professional schools, or volunteering to stem malaria epidemics in Africa, or....)</p>
<p>Under those conditions (the question was "what's worth paying for"), it would be extremely rare in my opinion for any prestige college or university to be able to provide $108k worth of "value-added". Oddly enough, your son MIGHT be one of those rare instance: I don't know whether there any state universities that might provide the critical mass in higher-level mathematics that could move your s. forward, or whether those services could be purchased /accessed in other ways. MKM56's d. seeking an education in equine sciences would likely be similar (although do most people who end up working with horses have degrees in equine science? I'm totally out of my league with that.) But for the vast majority of students, I think what I am suggesting would hold.</p>
<p>"The difference between you and me, though, is that I did have the money to spend on private school had I wanted to do so. I used a very little of that money on enriching his public school education. The savings I realized went toward his college education."</p>
<p>Same argument could be made (and I would make it) that the savings could go toward med school/law school, etc.</p>
<p>Again, academic in our case. My d's education is costing us well less than half of what the state school would have, and we (and she) are both coming out debtfree, or so it seems.</p>
<p>Actually, I think my S could have found what he needs academically at some large state schools: UMich, UWisc-Madison, UIUC and Berkeley come to mind. But he wanted a smaller environment, so we decided that the differential between OOS COA and full fare at his school was worth it (but that's because we can borrow the money without having to live on macaroni and cheese). I suppose he could have gone for merit aid at some schools, but, as I've said before, I think it is a zero-sum game, and I have qualms about going for merit money that some other family really needs to enable their child to attend college. But that's just me.</p>
<p>I think you should look at a range of choices with your child and also help them understand the financial trade-offs (unless you have all your financial needs taken care of and can spend without limits). We looked at large and small, in state and out of state, public and private. My son thought he would hate his large in-state (top 50) school, but it turned out that he liked it once he visited, especially after learning about (and applying to) the honors college. He ended up choosing it over several private colleges because he thought it was a better fit and because he was impressed with what he saw of the business school. We were willing and able to pay more $ but it was his decision (we actually preferred the smaller colleges- especially the ones that gave him generous merit aid). Well, he just registered for classes this fall and only one class will be in a large lecture hall. The other three are honors with limits of 20 students, and the last course is language with a limit of 22 students. He seems very pleased with his choice and is very excited about the fall - so we're happy too. So in addition to the privates, check out those state schools - and ask about honors programs. And be sure to visit instead of making assumptions about fit. As to whether or not certain schools are "worth" the extra money, that's a very individual decision - and is usually based on your financial situation and the needs of your child. It's not an easy thing to figure out!</p>
<p>interesting that the $108K morphed into $180K
So that is how our government budgets get overspent!"</p>
<p>$108k is the differential between the $180k ($45k/year) that a prestige college costs vs. the $72k ($16k/year) cost of the state university. The $180k and $108k references in my post are exactly as I intended, with the $108k being the amount that the "value-added" has to represent.</p>
<p>"But he wanted a smaller environment, so we decided that the differential between OOS COA and full fare at his school was worth it."</p>
<p>The OOS differential would be substantially smaller than $108k, so the "value-added" costs less. (But the question posed by the OP, as I understood it, would be for the in-state tuition at the flagship state school.) As I said, I think it would be extremely rare for any school - Ivies included - to provide (under the conditions I stated above) $108k worth of "value-added". When you get down lower ($60k?, $50k?, $70k?), under the conditions stated above, I think the argument gets more interesting. However, THAT would be academic, because no in-state school costs within $50-70k of the prestige ones (assuming aid at neither.)</p>
<p>I agree with toneranger's advice to look at a wide range of colleges. Our son applied to the state flagship, several LAC's and ones in between. When the acceptances and finaid offers came in, then he was able to more accurately evaluat the pros and cons of each.</p>
<p>Sl is at PSU, in-state. Easy - only place he wanted to go :) He's in IST, and PSU has one of the best known and cutting edge programs in that area, so we lucked out. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the education they received at PSU. S2 (rising hs sophomore) will be much more difficult, which is why I am already reading this board. I think PSU will be much too large for him; I don't think he'd be happy there, even if he gets into the Schreyer's Honor College. It will be complicated (assuming he continues to achieve in hs as he has been), because he is already set on grad school. Maybe UMich or UWisc (somewhat smaller than PSU), do well, and then get into an excellent law school. Or a LAC where he can get very good merit aid. He prefers a cold climate and lots of snow (unusual, I know). I'm not really looking forward to this, but he's the type who knows his own mind, so he will come to his own conclusions, I'm sure. Yes, we would be willing to pay more for him to be at the right place, but within reason. </p>
<p>Marite: I think the rankings have changed since 2003 a bit - PSU was 45 on your list and is now 48 (for whatever it's worth).</p>