<p>
</p>
<p>Let it go. He doesn't want a discussion, he wants to make pronouncements and have you agree with him. If you don't, he sulks and says you don't understand and don't value his contribution to the discussion.</p>
<p>originaloog, I did not fail to understand. I simply disagree that one school is as good as another and it all depends on the student. You may also have different experiences than those of us in the Northeast who do not have excellent public schools to choose from.</p>
<p>d:</p>
<p>Sorry. I should have been more clear. I meant "you" as in others on this thread. I realize you took it to mean "you" as in dstark.</p>
<p>My apologies.</p>
<p>i haven't read whole thread- and with my memory nowdays even if I had- I wouldn't be able to remember the fine points
Our EFC was roughly what it would be to attend instate public- which offered little merit aid if any.
D was accepted at a private school that met 100% of need ( yes some of it was met with loans)
We hoped that the small private would make a difference in her education.
She also took classes summers ( and during her year off) at a local community college, that were accepted toward her degree by the small private ( but not figured into GPA)</p>
<p>While the CC do not have the "prestige" of our local flagship ( but were cheaper) it is practically impossible to take any of the classes she wanted without being admitted to the university ( which would have resulted in her then being a transfer student back to her college)</p>
<p>While the focus in the classes at CC(large U) are determined by the enrolled students, her CC classes were often made up of students who already had degrees and were getting their pre-reqs for advanced degrees in a different field, which made for a stronger classroom, than perhaps some of the classes I have taken at the CC, that were more general in nature.</p>
<p>Both my kids are drawn to smaller schools, being from a 1st gen background, they do need more support which can be easier to obtain from a smaller school/one with more financial resources.</p>
<p>If we could find that at a larger- public school, it would be great, especially if it was cheaper. :) but usually - that costs</p>
<p>You are so right Originaloog, and my experience confirms your observations. I attended a small prestigious LAC for undergrad, a large average public U for grad, and a medium private prestigious U for doc. At every step, the academically curious and socially friendly thrived, even in classes taught by average faculty, while the unmotivated and troubled kids sulked and licked their wounds, even while being taught by superior teachers.</p>
<p>In my middle age, I am making too much money to qualify for financial aid, but not enough to pay 45k/year private school costs without taking on more debt than I want to be carrying as my working life starts to wane.</p>
<p>So, my thinking is that if god forbid my kid turns out to be unmotivated and/or troubled, I would rather have him sulk at an inexpensive state school than an expensive private school. And if he continues to be the good kid I hope I have raised, then he will be resourceful enough to find his niche, particularly if he chooses wisely among the available public eduction options.</p>
<p>Living in New York State with a broad spectrum of public higher education choices in terms of size and academic rigor, I have concluded that unless your kid is at ivy league or junior ivy league level, a private school does not seem to offer any material advantage over public education.</p>
<p>Here is my question: What is the argument for choosing Syracuse over Binghamton/Albany/Buffalo/Stony Brook (putting aside specialty programs), or Ithaca over Brockport/Oneonta/New Paltz/Fredonia (putting aside specialty programs), or Rochester over Geneseo (putting aside specialty programs)?</p>
<p>I am having a real hard time seeing the other side of this argument and would appreciate adverse opinions.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that a slacker kid will be a slacker kid at an Ivy and waste the opportunities, and a motivated kid will get what he or she needs at a lesser school. However, that begs the question: Will the motivated kid get a better education at a better school? Will the motivated kid have more opportunities at a better school? Will that kid have to work as hard to find his or her niche, or will he or she be able to ocncentrate more on the education? Will he or she have to fight the prevailing culture, or be part of it? </p>
<p>If the motivated kid can be educated anywhere, why not just send them all to community college?</p>
<p>Sawdust, </p>
<p>I think Taxguy started this post with some really worthwhile considerations. Even so, it might have been better to start a new post, rather than dig up this old one.</p>
<p>I certainly understand your point of view and tend to agree. It rarely makes sense to pay lots more money for a private college, when there are equivalent State schools which cost much less. Since I am also a New York resident, we spent a lot of time looking at the SUNY schools. Without naming names, many of the SUNYs are pretty modest academically. Many also share a couple of really undesirable characteristics: location in remote snowbelt towns and a very strong alcohol-centered culture. All of the SUNYs have declined over the past decade or so due to budget cuts. In the past 10 years there has been very substantial growth in attendance while the number of faculty has been cut by 1000 full time positions. Most of the SUNYs now have faculty:student ratios which are very poor at about 1:20. We did look seriously at 3 SUNYs: Binghamton, Geneseo, and Stony Brook. I attended Binghamton. It was an exceedingly depressing place. I felt like I was locked in prison with some books. I tried to keep an open mind, but my D had no difficulty assessing the environment and I really could see little difference - except more negatives - from when I attended. We looked pretty closely at Geneseo - another unattractive location, a really small town, and a heavy party culture. Even so it had a much better "feel" than Binghamton, but was pretty thin on the sciences and music which interested by daughter. By contrast, I would have to say U Rochester was miles ahead - very strong academics, including sciences,engineering, and premed, and a very vibrant stimulating environment. Music opportunities included those on the River campus and the worldclass Eastman conservatory. Last we looked at Stony Brook, which offered my D full tuition. I think SB is a pretty strong choice for a fairly good student. My older D graduated from SB. She goofed off all through high school and spend 2 years at her reach school - the local community college. She took 2 more years to finish her undergrad at SB. She never worked very much, got all A's and graduated phi beta kappa. I guess my younger D just wanted more in the way of academic challenge. She found it and now I just watch and pay the tuition. </p>
<p>When does it make sense? When the State schools are not very good. When a motivated kid is accepted into a much better school and works to take advantage of the opportunity. When both parents and the kid believe education is very important and not just something necessary to get a job.</p>
<p>I think this is one of those YMMV (your mileage may vary) issues.</p>
<p>For us, like Emerald, our EFC put us right about at the cost for the state university, which because of our income our kids would not receive any financial aid. The private schools (we also did the need-based) discounted at or below when all was said and done, and offered work study.</p>
<p>The other issue is that our two flagship state universities are very large, huge in fact. UT-Austin has over 50,000 students. So for the same cost, we were looking at much larger classes and possibly a fifth year due to not getting classes v the smaller LACs. </p>
<p>I know this doesn't work out for everyone the way it worked for us. Therefore YMMV.</p>
<p>Chedva, I'm kind of offended by the suggestion that MA doesn't have good public schools, I went to a very good public school in MA, and I know of many other schools across Massachusetts which are considered extremely good. I never once thought of going to a private school, and neither did any of my 4 brothers, and we've done very well.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, Sklog_W, if I offended you (although in this post, I didn't mention MA schools at all - I have in the past). I don't know when you went to those schools, but since my d is now a senior, we did significant research on the issue. During the past administrations in Massachusetts, budgets have been slashed, professors replaced with adjuncts and part-time instructors, facilities allowed to deteriorate, classes and majors cut, class sizes increased. The schools are not what they once were. Ten years ago, I might have agreed with you, and MA schools would have been on my d's list. Not now, not for her. And I won't even get into the atmosphere and culture at the flagship university. </p>
<p>I stand by my belief, however, that a top student, still motivated while in college, can get a better education at a private school that "fits" than at a public school that doesn't, and where they have to fight to find the things they need. U Mass may indeed fit some kids; it doesn't fit all.</p>
<p>There have been at least three threads with this exact discussion...</p>
<p>Tarhunt I have your back-- but I have debated this one enough times already. Feel free to copy and paste my posts from the other threads! </p>
<p>dstark never seems to get sick of it though!</p>
<p>Okay, I know what the data say, for students with a profile that matches that of the top tier schools, there is no evidence of greater success. Like all such data it is referring to groups, but when considering what is best for our kids, we need to look at the individual. For my particular child, a very bright and learning hungry slacker of sorts, I was concerned about the environment at the public university. Having both repertoires, learner and slacker, my concern was that there was a greater probability of the slacker repertoire becoming predominate at the state u or less rigorous private. Fortunately, for some unknown reason, he was accepted at schools that are known for being quite rigorous. It has been magical for him. He has blossomed (at least so far, year 2 now) into a disciplined, highly engaged student, who can balance a very active social life with very good academic performance under very demanding conditions. Although there is no way of knowing if this would have happened at the state u, I have my doubts. I believe it was the intellectual climate of the school and his peers which made a real difference. Spending the money for this kid was well worth it. Now, I have another kid approaching college. This one is actually a better student than the first. He has some great EC's, not planned, just happened, and perhaps will be a better candidate for a top school than was his brother. Given his personality, however, I would have little concern about him succeeding at the flagship state u, and for now that is where we are thinking he may go. This may change, it is his decision (and the decision of those folks who do the admitting), but no concerns about the public u for this one. I would be just as happy to see him attend the public as I would any of the top privates. I may even make the "mini" offer, go to state U and I'll provide $100,000 for travel and individual learning experiences (I would still save $100,000).</p>
<p>I think what some posters are looking for is not information, but for validation of their choice. You always wonder about the road not taken. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. When you ask "if you were me..." then you will get a variety of responses. Some families have more choices than others, but the main goal is to get our children educated without incurring a huge debt load. Each family has a different view of what is affordable, what constitutes "fit," and how their child learns best.</p>
<p>I agree with Thumper in thinking that #1 is a bit harsh re: People with More Money Than Sense??</p>
<p>*<em>There are PLENTY of families out there with money AND sense (maybe that's part of the reason they have plenty of money!). We would be very happy to be one of those families :) *</em></p>
<p>It's a personal choice with many factors tied in. Affordability is a big one, but not the only one. It's not a right/wrong, all/nothing decision.</p>
<p>To me, it's pretty depressing to read about so many States going in the opposite needed direction. Just when we need improvements & expansions to public colleges, we get an amazing shrinkage. Combine that with the still on-the-rise h.s. senior population, & no wonder that the privates (not just the Elites) experience so much admissions pressure.</p>
<p>Many of the growth states are expanding their systems--Cal, Florida, Texas have all added or greatly expanded schools. Populations are stable or declining in much of the midwest and northeast. Washington just added a new UW branch and several 1000 new places in the schools.</p>
<p>barrons, CA has not expanded enough to meet growth, i.m.o. Clearly NY & MASS have not expanded enough to meet demand. (And I should add that I mean improve as well as expand.) Given the quality of high school education in the NE corner, there do not seem to be enough public college alternatives on the level that well educated students look for. At least that's what I hear on these boards, from parents & students in those locations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The kid who goes to Second Tier Private U is announcing to the world on his resume for the rest of his life that he could not get into First Tier Private U.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, what an incredibly elitist response. I've met First Tier Private graduates in the work world who could not spell, produced sub-standard work and routinely shirked duties. Their resumes told me that they were legacy babies who did not get in on their academic merits.</p>
<p>I think a student who attends a second tier private on a substantial merit scholarship is announcing to the world that he/she is a smart cookie as well, one who has expanded his/her choices with hard work and academic achievement.</p>
<p>Epiphany, actually there are more spaces at UC Merced than there are students to fill them, and UC Merced was built specifically to accommodate growth -- so at the level of the UC's... California has expanded. Where California needs to be putting in more funds & support -- including possible expansion - is at the level of the CSU's -- but I'm not sure that would be appreciated by most posters here, as CSU's are largely commuter schools, considered lower tier by US News standards. So I'd agree with you about California needing to address growth better - but I just think that the need is at a lower level than the focus of most discussion on this board.</p>