<p>When “people” (presumably you mean, brand-obsessed people who would conceivably benefit as much from a top state college, as they would from an Ivy League school) start doing proper cost-benefit analyses for their major and based on actual aid to be received and interest to be paid on loans.</p>
<p>There are advantages and disadvantages to everything. If you have the money, and your child is able to fully benefit from the academic rigor of the top majors in which rankings count (e.g. not journalism, nobody cares whether you went to the Ivy League in journalism) why not go to an Ivy League school?</p>
<p>On the other hand, if your child wants to go to college for oh, I don’t know. Let’s say education, to become a teacher. Not an education public administrator, or education politician, but a teacher. You are of ordinary means, say $60k combined annual income, but you saved a lot. It would never, ever be worth it to sink your savings into Harvard, <em>even if</em> Harvard’s education school is ranked very highly. Because you just don’t need Harvard to be a great teacher.</p>
<p>On the OTHER hand, people of the same means might use all of their expected contribution towards Harvard, if another child wanted to attend Harvard for pre-med.</p>
<p>Anyone who is only looking at names is mistaken. But that doesn’t mean rankings are meaningless.</p>
<p>Just curious…where on their website is this? (I could not find it). We know someone who attended that school and to our knowledge did not have any disability or emotional dx. Yet your numbers above add up to 100 percent. Can you clarify?</p>
<p>People are so caught up on the term “Ivy”. They act as if the Ivy League is such a prestigious group, but all it is an athletic conference. Heck, Berkeley, UCLA, and UVA are harder than some of the Ivies in terms of admissions.</p>
<p>"Actually, Harvard is not a great example of “too expensive” due to its generous non-loan financial aid. The family with $60k annual income can send the student to Harvard at no cost if s/he gets in. In other words, Harvard can be a financial safety for low to moderate income families, if the student gets in (which is the hard part). "</p>
<p>$120k. Whatever. There must be some income at which it is a significant burden to pay for a child to attend private school, but for which aid does not much alleviate that burden. Let’s say people making enough to have an EFC of 50% of tuition, but who have spent that money keeping up with the Joneses who make like, 100k more than them.</p>
<p>And by “burden” I don’t mean, hunger or homelessness, obviously. Just a very serious and conspicuous drop in living standards that the parents do not want to make on behalf of the child, if the child has a major or intellect that is not going to benefit from the environment at Harvard.</p>
<p>Do you see my point? The figures could be changed, but ultimately, there will be people that are not going to get a bang for their buck at Harvard. This is not to say it’s not an excellent school, or even better than every state school in certain departments. However, you would have to be an extremely unique student to need that Harvard education to teach to your full potential. And most families would not want to, say, have most of their assets repo’ed because they can’t continue to make exorbitant payments on them.</p>
<p>I really get tired of this discussion, but what the heck.
When people refer to “Ivies” in this kind of discussion, they are using it as shorthand for “highly selective well-known private universities.” So I get weary of hearing that it’s just an athletic conference.
Ivies are better for some people, and state flagships are better for some other people. This is news?
Some people who think they can’t afford highly selective private schools really could afford them. Others really would have to make an unacceptable sacrifice. Again, this is news?
Schools with better faculty, better facilities, better employment networks, and more capable students, must be, in some sense, “better” than schools that don’t have those things. So what?</p>
<p>“$120k. Whatever. There must be some income at which it is a significant burden to pay for a child to attend private school, but for which aid does not much alleviate that burden. Let’s say people making enough to have an EFC of 50% of tuition, but who have spent that money keeping up with the Joneses who make like, 100k more than them.”</p>
<p>youre not getting it, they arent quibbling with the income level you mentioned, but your naming Harvard. Havard, along with a couple of other Ivies has made it a particular point to be generous with aid. </p>
<p>Youre supposed to pick a different ivy, or better, NYU, for this game.</p>
<p>Harvard is still a bad example of a “too expensive” school even at that level of family income, because it is exceptionally generous with non-loan financial aid.</p>
<p>Your example would work better if you named a private school with a high list price and average or below average non-loan financial aid. Even more so if it is a second or lower tier school that is not really that special in any way that matters much to the student’s ability to get a good education.</p>
<p>Remember it is *net cost after non-loan financial aid<a href=“not%20list%20price”>/i</a> that matters to the student comparing costs and value for the money, and such costs are quite dependent on each student’s individual circumstances.</p>
<p>About 40 private universities and LACs (including all 8 Ivies) have higher average SATs than the highest-scoring public university (Berkeley). This is true even though virtually all those private schools are less numbers-driven (more “holistic”) in admissions than state universities. </p>
<p>Cost, course selection, facilities and research productivity are areas where some state flagships do compete well against some top private schools.</p>
<p>I am getting closer to justifying the cost difference from state flagship to highly selective school if fulfills a specific benefit for a specific child. But…I can not yet come to terms with how one can justify the price uptick from a state flagship to a NON top 20/25 LAC or University where the cost of attendance can be equal to that of a highly selective school.</p>
<p>tk,UVa does indeed use an holistic approach to admissions. Friends’s son in NY was not admitted to UVa but is happily at Cornell. The top students at places like UVa,Michigan,Berkeley,etc. tend to be students that are very accomplished in terms of SAT’s,GPA’s,etc. and would be competitive for admission at lots of schools.States have some obligation to their own citizens so public universities will of course also admit students who would not be able to get into the Ivy League type schools. So what? That’s good academic,social diversity. Many instate kids go to public schools because of cost,location,social fit.They’re still learning .</p>
<p>^ I don’t disagree with anything you say, sevmom. </p>
<p>I do think, however, that there are good reasons to choose an Ivy League school over a state flagship … if money is no object. Of course, money is an issue for most middle class families. So you need to identify where the comparative strengths and weaknesses are before you can make an informed, sober decision whether to spend the extra money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re comparing an expensive large private university in this category, I think the extra cost is hard to justify. In the case of a LAC, to me the biggest advantage is the smaller class size. With that, you get more (or better) discussion classes and more written assignments with generous feedback from the professor. These advantages in some cases are outweighed by the advantages of a state flagship.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine anyone choosing University of Kentucky for any reason other than financial or as a basketball recruit…oh, I mean pro.
Other state schools (Va, Mich, Texas,Cal) have a lot going for them and may offer things a particular student might not find at a private, more selective school. There ARE lots of reasons to choose a state university, but there is no need to bash the highly-selective privates.</p>