<p>hereshoping:
I'm sure the rankings have changed a bit; I do not think that a difference of 3 places is meaningful. And, since S2 is safely out of the house (figuratively, of course), I am not investing in another copy of USN&WR! It was curiosity rather than actual desire to use the rankings that made my buy a copy of the college and of the grad schools rankings, anyway. The only use I have for both is for arguing on CC!</p>
<p>Marite: I agree; it is a place to start, though. If people want to, they can quickly check the 2006 top 50 online at usnews.com.</p>
<p>Hereshoping: I should have stayed out of Borders!</p>
<p>It was a tough choice but we ended up choosing Carnegie Mellon over UIUC. Both are in the top 5 in Comp Sci, our S's chosen major. We had two major reasons - fit and size. Our S felt right at home at CMU. enjoyed the feel of the campus, and enjoyed talking to the professors and students. Since we have only the one child, have saved for years, he loved the school and the city, and he was able to get a couple of small scholarships, we held our breath and went for it. </p>
<p>Also, knowing our son, he will be much better off at a smaller school where the staff will intervene if necessary to help him keep on track. He's more likely to get guidance and less likely to have to find his own way in the first year or two. I'm a little biased by my experience at U Mich, where I started in Honors College as a NMF (like our S) but was kicked out into regular classes after freshman year. Granted things may have changed in the many many years since I was in college, but I firmly believe that a small school is much better than a state university for students who may have a motivation problem. If I only knew then what I know now....</p>
<p>On our last visit to CMU I asked the CS Admin why they were worth $100K more than the state school, especially considering UIUC's own reputation in CS. Overall, it was the professors, research and internship opportunities, the facilities, and the post-graduate options. But I'm not sure if that would have swayed our decision if our S was a different kind of kid. He would have had to do some fancy talking to persuade us!</p>
<p>State uni is UTexas. Paying for Harvard. For us, the cost difference was nil or slightly cheaper for the first year at H, and UT is going up faster than H. The cost of living in Austin is skyrocketing. She didn't apply to UT, so don't know about any scholarships there. The size and location were both negatives to D. </p>
<p>The other options would have been Mt Holyoke, $25K a year grant, or Rice, $60K over 4 years. Since merit wipes out need, the cost differences on a per year basis would not have been extreme. We'll see how the remaining years go.</p>
<p>California residents. Daughter accepted to Revelle at UCSD. Opted for Colgate. Visited both and was astounded by large class sizes at UCSD and lack of sense of community. We are fortunate as we have 2 daughters in college at one time, therefore we got some financial aid for each, however, we are still paying well over UC tuition rates.</p>
<p>Our son was accepted at an Ivy League college and an honors program at our in-state school, UTexas-Austin (Plan II Honors). He chose Plan II. We did not qualify for need-based aid at either college. Would it have been worth it to pay the extra money for the Ivy League? Absolutely, but only if our son decided he wanted that more. So, for us, it's easy to answer the question "What would cause you to pay a substantial premium over in-state public costs for a bachelor's degree?" We would have paid extra if that's what our son wanted. In essence, then, the answer is we would pay more for a good fit.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, our son made his decision logically and he had good reasons for his decision. We would not be willing to pay more if our son were the type to decide by flipping a coin or because he wanted to go where his friends were.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the field of Study. My kids are going into Engineering and there are many state schools, top 50, that are cheaper and as highly or higher ranked than the Ivy's.</p>
<p>I see no point to going to the Ivy school and incurring the debt when so many other options are availabe and as highly ranked in this field</p>
<p>not an Ivy but perhaps Cal Tech would warrent extra money over the state school.</p>
<p>Our family is probably among the extreme examples, with these two poles (State U Honors, free ride + stipend) being -$9,000 versus $130,000 (elite private university, top departments in his subjects). </p>
<p>I think of it as a high-priced and discretionary luxury. At the same time, it's delivering very high value. "You get what you pay for" seems to be true in our case. If he hadn't been as idealistic and hadn't cared so much, I would have pushed for the State U or one of the full tuition scholarships. It's the student's desire that most often sways the parent's decision when family finances are a factor but don't prohibit making a more expensive choice.</p>
<p>When St. Peter asks me "Did you do everything you could to support and help your child?" I'll be able to answer "Yes, Sir!" And then he'll cut my 30 years in purgatory to 10 years. </p>
<p>And once again, my favorite joke: "Why did God invent the Goyim?"
"Because somebody hadda pay retail!" It's my fate. (And I have religion confusion, obviously).</p>
<br>
<p>"Why did God invent the Goyim?" "Because somebody hadda pay retail!"</p>
<br>
<p>That's hilarious! I think my education is the only thing my father has ever bought retail without feeling that he got ripped off.</p>
<p>We're in Pennsylvania and PSU engineering is very good.So we told D to apply to PSU and any other schools she wanted to but with the proviso we were only going to pay what PSU would cost.
I don't think any school is worth a big premium over a State school (unless of course you're fortunate enough that money is no concern)</p>
<p>I just want to say Mombot this is a real worthwhile op.</p>
<p>One reason to ponyup to a prestigious undergrad education is to GET INTO a prestigious professional school. For example, if you want to work for a large law firm in a big city, one of the finest law firms, you have more of a chance for consideration of employment there if you have gone to a fine law school . You have more of a chance at being considered by a fine law school if you have graduated from a top college. Of course, you also have to have gotten great law school grades and been on the Law Review but you will be better prepared for this if you have gone to a better college. (Now why is this? Because there are some REALLY DIFFICULT concepts and cases in law and they need the brightest people.) HOWEVER, chance, luck, who you know, everything comes into play, too. It isn't just the college, it's chances. People like to think there is an order to proceed to succeed. Maybe it's all just a roll of the dice.</p>
<p>After poking around and brooding about this I think I can reach a couple of tentative conclusions:</p>
<p>If you have skillz that are in high demand (compsci, engineering, math, physics maybe) you can go pretty much anywhere and you will have a lot of opportunities.</p>
<p>If you want to get a libarts degree then you are dependent on school and alumni connections and so you may find that paying up is worth it but you have to be the right personality type to play up the connections, and if you are capable of that, you can play up connections at your state U. and do well.</p>
<p>So we are all spinning ourselves into an early grave angsting over something that is really determined by our child's inherent personal qualities. Kids are not vessels, being passively filled with esoteric knowlege at selective schools. It is a case of classic circular reasoning: if a kid is good enough to get into a top school, they are good enough to do a lot of other things well too, and they will almost always do well.</p>
<p>backhand identified one of the few areas where brand probably does matter: Law. There are so many d*****d lawyers they had to invent an internal heirarchy to sort things down to a manageable level.</p>
<p>I like that mombot. Good observation.</p>
<p>We went to a Carnegie-Mellon presentation last night and they were quoting their stats--good lord their selectivity has gone up just in the past year--the numbers they had were completely different than the ones you see published. They broke out their average SAT by COLLEGE and the reason their "average" SAT on the quickie profiles looks so reasonable is that they have so many applicants to their fine arts programs with really low scores--their scores to the academic schools are well over 700. </p>
<p>I was educated in finance and have worked in that field for a long time and it occurred to me on the drive home that what we have with the college admissions thing is a classic case of a traditionally very inefficient market getting efficent in a hurry because of a better exchange of information. To look at this in purely economic terms, what you want to do is very similar to investing: you want to identify an undervalued asset (a hidden gem) and get in before the herd figures it out. So if you treat the college process as an exercise in intelligent investing, what you are looking for isn't a school that is good today, but a school that is doing all the right things so that it will be "hot" about the time you are graduating. If you are entering the job market armed with a degree from a school perceived as prestigious, you will have better job opportunities. </p>
<p>But there are millions of people doing the same screening, so there's a constant spillover effect. Traditionally, HYPS and MIT were perceived as top tier, but now the odds are so low there top students hedge their bets by applying to places like CMU, Tufts, JHU, etc. Suddenly those schools get indundated with applications, and their selectivity goes way up. After a year or so that information enters the datastream so the crowd starts screening for the next wave of schools that offer quality comparable to the JHU'S, CMUs, etc. but are easier to get into and still offer some merit scholarships. Th</p>