<p>*"There is no question that, for the typical middle-class applicant, Harvard is far cheaper than many state schools," Vedder said. "But it is even worse: the typical Harvard student graduates in four years, while the typical student at a state university takes five years (and sometimes six) -- if she graduates at all."</p>
<p>"...increasingly I am seeing role reversal: The private schools are in some respects really more 'public' than the so-called 'public' or 'state' universities," he said. "Moreover, schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Williams are able to offer lower tuition fees because of their vast wealth, which, in turn, was largely accumulated as a result of tax exempt privileges granted by the federal government. Who is more 'public': Harvard or Cal State East Bay? It is a debatable proposition." *</p>
<p>The problem is that the “typical middle-class” applicant is the same as the typical wealthy and poor applicant - none of them will get into Harvard.</p>
<p>When you take out students from the top 3% economically (which makes up about 55-60% of H’s student body), the Pell grantees (low income), the international students, and the upper middle income students, there are (relatively speaking) no middle income students at Harvard (those there are will be mostly athletes).</p>
<p>It’s not just the merit aid at state universities that is a big draw for students who might be within range of top private universities. State universities love their honors students and make sure they have access to small classes with the best professors, ample research opportunities, and enhanced advising. Honors students at many (but not all) state universities can more easily afford an extra year for a second major in an unrelated area of interest (sometimes merit aid is even extended for that purpose), whereas students at private schools are often under pressure (financial and institutional) to graduate within four years.</p>
<p>A friend’s kid with perfect SAT got admitted to Harvard and got half ride. He accepted a full ride + dorm + books + beer money (beer or books, not sure :)) at our local flagship. So his dad asks me for a good medical school and casually mentions the kid got a 44 on the MCAT, a 4.0 GPA, etc… I suggested Johns Hopkins… </p>
<p>The kid chose the state flagship because (as indicated above) of small class sizes for the honors program, undergrad research ops, and great med school application process coaching… I think Harvard lost out on him.</p>
<p>Much ado about nothing? “Great” merit aid/free-rides at the local state U with small honors classes? Great med-school coaching? Really?</p>
<p>Well, then apparently somebody forgot to tell that to all of the top students in California who chose to attend an elite private school rather than one of their state’s schools. Note, I invoke the specific example of California as that is the implicit comparison between made within the article (as the comparison in the article was regarding a CalState, hence strongly implying that the person in question is a California state resident). For example, I know quite a few Californians on extensive aid packages at top private schools but who, frankly, received only measly merit aid packages from any of the UC’s, such that the cost of the top private school was roughly the same or even cheaper. Indeed, (athletic scholarships excepted) the financial award amounts of the UC merit scholarships are themselves predicated on your need, such that if you don’t have need, you receive only a relatively small sum, I believe $2000 a year, which is certainly far from a free ride. As far as dedicated honors programs are concerned, Berkeley doesn’t have one at all, and UCLA’s is open only to students in the College of Letters & Science (which is ironic given that the engineering students tend to be stronger students, yet they’re not eligible for the honors college). Granted, I suppose you could go to an honors college at one of the lower UC’s, but that’s naturally not highly attractive to somebody who can get into an elite private school. Nor even in those cases will you usually be able to take every course you need within the honors colleges, which means that you may (depending your major) indeed be relegated to some of the auditorium-style courses. As far as med-school advising is concerned, the sad truth is that none of the UC’s are particularly distinguished in this category. Berkeley doesn’t even offer a premed advisory-rec-letter service at all. And around 50-60% of premed seniors from Berkeley or UCLA who apply to med-school are admitted to even a single med-school, and that percentage is not far off from the average premed-acceptance rate for college seniors nationwide. </p>
<p>Now, certainly, I can agree that there probably are other states with public schools that do indeed offer strong merit scholarships along with small honors colleges and excellent advising that can rival what the top private schools can offer. But at least for the most populous state in the country, this sadly does not seem to be so and the article is therefore entirely apropos.</p>
<p>And I can think of some examples of the reverse: I know some people who did not receive anywhere near to full rides from UC, but did receive entirely full rides, plus stipends, from the elite private schools. And yes, they also enjoyed excellent research ops and advising and then went on to top grad schools or employers. {Granted, they didn’t enjoy a private honors college experience, but that’s because the entire college was basically one big honors college). I think UC lost out on them.</p>
<p>The logical thing to do is to apply to a range of public and private colleges and wait to find out their net cost before you make a decision. Too many people get emotionally connected to a college, and then find out they cannot afford it.</p>
<p>There is only one public university that meets 100% of need for all US students and is need blind in admissions. That is U. of Virginia. However, they are now studying possible changes because the costs are increasing.</p>
<p>I agree. With our own personal experience, we’re two for two (ACTs of 31 and 34 respectively) with private coming out not only higher ranked, but also less expensive. It did depend upon the private school, however. One (Furman) came in way out of the ballpark of the others for middle son. A closer inspection of their school (from a link on their forum to their magazine) shows that they are switching to going after a wealthier demographic and providing less aid - and have become test optional. I feel for those who fell in love with that school without the means to pay and/or who put all their eggs in one basket (knowing they had a reputation for being good with aid - emphasis on HAD). Fortunately, my guy is happy going anywhere he applied, so he just shrugged off their notion of our paying 33K annually on top of his taking on loans (and a small scholarship).</p>
<p>I have one left to go in two years. He’ll try both and multiple private schools and will be cautioned against falling in love early.</p>
<p>I think it depends on your state and the merit possibilities within the state. Even though we are in WA state my son did not apply to UW (very limited merit aid). He could have gotten full tuition at WSU or WWU but did not apply. He has full tuition offers from Pitt (out of state public) and Northeastern (out of state private). We make too much money to really benefit from even the generous financial aid at many of the Ivies so he did not apply to the tippy top schools. I guess what I am trying to say is there are too many variables to generalize on this topic.</p>
<p>S2 was admitted OOS to both UVA an UNC-CH. There was a noticeable difference between the two in terms of financial aid offered, plus UNC’s COA is less even without financial aid.</p>
<p>S2 has met a couple of kids at UNC who turned down ivy admission offers for full Moorhead (sp?) scholarships.</p>
<p>UVA and UNC-Chapel Hill have reputations for being generous with financial aid, but in fact both schools give less FA than Michigan does, both in total and on a per capita basis. The difference is that UVA and UNC have wealthier student bodies, so they can afford to meet full need for the smaller fraction of their students who have need. (All figures from each school’s 2011-12 Common Data Set)></p>
<p>Total scholarship and grant aid:
Michigan $181.4 million
UNC $107.3 million
UVA $81.0 million</p>
<p>Total scholarship and grant aid from institutional sources:
Michigan $131.3 million
UNC $55.8 million
UVA $49.7 million</p>
<p>Total scholarship and grant aid from state government:
Michigan $2.7 million
UNC $17.6 million
UVA $5.4 million</p>
<p>Scholarship and grant aid per capita:
Michigan $6,976
UNC $6,145
UVA $5,764</p>
<p>Scholarship and grant aid from institutional sources per capita:
Michigan $5,050
UNC $3,195
UVA $3,535</p>
<p>% of undergrads with financial need
Michigan 47.5%
UNC 41.7%
UVA 32.6%</p>
<p>At UVA, fewer than a third of the undergrads have any financial need; the rest are full-pays. At UNC just over 40% have financial need, but only 18% of the undergrads are OOS; in-state need will be less because in-state COA is less. Michigan’s shoveling out more FA money, but with a larger OOS population than UNC and a much higher ratio of need: full-pays than UVA, it manages to meet 100% of need for “only” 90% of its students.</p>
<p>Bclintonk, you’re missing the difference in cost of attendance between the three schools.
U-Mich OOS COA: $50,352
UNC OOS COA: $41,140
UVA OOS COA: $50,528
So Michigan gives $800 more per capita in financial aid than UNC, but costs $9,000 more.</p>