The "Wasted Time" thread has become a discussion about paying for college, which I suggest be continued here. As I wrote there, parents should not assume that state schools will be the cheapest. The article below confirms that.
The impossible has happened: Harvard College is now thousands of dollars cheaper than Cal State East Bay for middle-income California students. So is Princeton. And Williams College. And Yale. Top private schools, with their generous aid, have been among the most affordable options for poor students for a few years, but rising tuition has only recently sent California State University and University of California prices shooting past the Harvards and Yales for middle-class students. The revelation comes as thousands of college and university students on Monday march to protest budget cuts in Sacramento that have forced up tuition and shaken campuses. It's almost unthinkable in a state that once practically gave away college educations. "We are coming close to pricing out many of our middle-class students," said Rhonda Johnson, Cal State East Bay's financial-aid director. "Now we're seeing a disadvantaged middle class." College-cost calculators illuminate the dramatic shifts. Consider a family of four -- married parents, a high-school senior and a 14-year-old child -- making $130,000 a year. With typical aid,¿ the family should expect to pay nearly $24,000 for a Cal State freshman's tuition, on-campus room and board, supplies and other expenses. At Harvard? Just $17,000, even though its stated annual tuition is $36,305. The same family would pay about $33,000 for a freshman year at UC Santa Cruz.
UC Berkeley, which recently followed the lead of private colleges by boosting aid for middle-class families, would cost $19,500.
Thanks Bostonian. I was not raised to aim for Ivies, but as my mother has pointed out on numerous occasions for my DD, “why not, if she could get a great scholarship?”
The mentality I was raised with is that, if you had to pay out for Ivies it would be value for money if you were guaranteed to hook into whatever path/professional entity it might be that values a degree from that particular school. Sometimes that takes the social connections as well, but that probably depends upon what you’re studying and aiming for. There are others with deeper knowledge about and more experience with this matter than me.
Anyway, information is power and thanks for posting these links.
I still think it's realistic to expect a full college scholarship for state schools. My sister-in-law got one a few years ago (dental school now).
There are two tracks to choose from, in my mind.
You can choose the "free" state school track or you can aim for the Ivy.
It depends on whether you are looking for a good brand (Ivy Diploma) or a free school (taking on the debt in grad school).
For either track, one needs good grades in honors/AP courses and good test scores. In 12th grade one can apply both to state schools and to Ivies. So the idea of separate tracks does not make sense to me. How should the efforts of students on these supposedly different tracks differ?
I still think it's realistic to expect a full college scholarship for state schools. My sister-in-law got one a few years ago (dental school now).
There are two tracks to choose from, in my mind.
You can choose the "free" state school track or you can aim for the Ivy.
It depends on whether you are looking for a good brand (Ivy Diploma) or a free school (taking on the debt in grad school).
For either track, one needs good grades in honors/AP courses and good test scores. In 12th grade one can apply both to state schools and to Ivies. So the idea of separate tracks does not make sense to me. How should the efforts of students on these supposedly different tracks differ?
Actually, you don't. Lottery scholarships in our state require a C average and a high school diploma. They are only available to students who have been a resident of the state for at least the past year, and they do require that you begin college at a participating state institution immediately after high school along with then maintaining full time status and a C average in your college classes. But that is really not stringent requirements to get a college degree for about $6000 out of pocket after using just the state lottery scholarship.
I still think it's realistic to expect a full college scholarship for state schools. My sister-in-law got one a few years ago (dental school now).
There are two tracks to choose from, in my mind.
You can choose the "free" state school track or you can aim for the Ivy.
It depends on whether you are looking for a good brand (Ivy Diploma) or a free school (taking on the debt in grad school).
For either track, one needs good grades in honors/AP courses and good test scores. In 12th grade one can apply both to state schools and to Ivies. So the idea of separate tracks does not make sense to me. How should the efforts of students on these supposedly different tracks differ?
The tracks don't have a difference in high school effort. I'm talking about post-high school tracks.
I chose the "state school" track (free) vs. the Ivy ($100,000). So did my college roommate. So there is that economic difference that you debating doesn't exist, but does exist if you have savings.
The academic difference is that you can more easily academically outperform your peers at the state school, which applies if you want to go to grad school. So my point is that it's possibly cheaper and possibly easier to get into a better grad school if you choose the non-Ivy state school.
I am consumed with curiosity ABQMom. To which state are you referring with the 'C' average lottery system? And this is a lottery in the traditional sense, as in names are randomly drawn? What percentage of entrants get a scholarship? Is this a common system or limited to your state?
I confess, I am skeptical about the wisdom of investing tax dollars in 'C' students. As was discussed in the "Wasted Time" thread, not everyone belongs in college. A 'C' student would seem marginally prepared for college. I wonder if your state tracks graduation rates for their lottery winners? It would be interesting to know if graduation correlates to high school GPA.
I am consumed with curiosity ABQMom. To which state are you referring with the 'C' average lottery system? And this is a lottery in the traditional sense, as in names are randomly drawn? What percentage of entrants get a scholarship? Is this a common system or limited to your state?
Yes - NM is correct. We have high schools where the graduation rates are well below 50%, so there is a drive to raise the number of students continuing to college. Our particular high school has over 20% of graduates with GPA's above 4.0 and over 97% continuing on to college, so the students who choose to stay in-state usually have an easier time rising to the top of their classes.
Thanks Bostonian and ABCQMom. Lottery as in funded by the lottery. We were sold the concept of the state lottery on the same premise, that the funds raised would be used for education. Our legislators treated this promise more as a mere suggestion than a binding rule when the money started coming in though.
I just wanted to point out that Ivies and State Schools are not the only options. More than 25 years ago when I was graduating from high school, it ended up costing me less to attend freshman year at a small, private liberal arts college known for its per capita Rhodes Scholar numbers than it would have to attend the state university that offered me financial aid. I'm not just talking about out-of-pocket expenses, I'm also talking about student loans vs. scholarships and grants.
One of my classmates was 15 as a freshman, took the full four years for college, joined a fraternity, dated a handful of women, married one of them, and got a PhD from an Ivy about the same time his age cohort was graduating from college. Now he's a professor at another liberal arts college, the one that would have been his first choice as a student, but ours offered a better scholarship.
I know that many gifted students are underachievers, can be kind of intense in their personal lives, and may not know what they want to do. Liberal arts colleges can be the perfect environment for these students, too! Another of my classmates thought she would major in art, couldn't afford the paints, studied biology until she encountered organic chemistry, then became a star in political science and a high ranking government official who traveled on a diplomatic passport.
Well, to be fair, public schools are extremely expensive in CA. I'd have to double-check, but I believe my (good) state university's tuition and room/board is still under 15K/year for in-state students. They also offer handsome scholarships for students with min SAT and HS rankings.
A private university (Ivy, etc.) costs $50,000 a year (roughly). UC-Berkeley or UC-San Diego cost with housing $35,000 a year (my friends who have kids there are paying that), but you many graduate in 5-6 years because not every class is offered every year due to budget cuts, etc. So 4 years x $50,000 = $200,000. 5 years x $35,000 = $175,000. 6 years at $35,000 = $210,000.
As a poor high school student applying to colleges, I was only accepted to the best college I applied to (the one everyone at the time told me would never accept me). It never made sense to me until I realized that top tier schools with large endowments are able to make their acceptance decisions blind to the applicant's ability to pay, while other schools aren't. I received a $20,000 dollar a year grant from the school to make attendance possible, and paid for most of the rest with loans.
I definitely doubted myself, and only applied to that school because a "stretch" school was recommended by the guidance counselor. It's hard for a poor child from a broken home who never received any accommodations from his public school to find the confidence to believe they belong at an expensive top tier private university. I guess the diploma on my wall says I did.
It's certainly important for applicants to look past the price tag and consider what each school will actually ask them to pay based on their financial situation.
A private university (Ivy, etc.) costs $50,000 a year (roughly). UC-Berkeley or UC-San Diego cost with housing $35,000 a year (my friends who have kids there are paying that), but you many graduate in 5-6 years because not every class is offered every year due to budget cuts, etc. So 4 years x $50,000 = $200,000. 5 years x $35,000 = $175,000. 6 years at $35,000 = $210,000.
And if each extra year in college means one less year of mid-career earnings, maybe one should add $200K to the cost of attending a school where one graduates in 6 rather than 4 years. Having more earning years is also an argument for acceleration.
ALOT of kids at the University of California schools cannot graduate in 4 years due to budget cuts. We had a babysitter at Berkeley who was really bright and driven, pre-med, etc. She waited 2 years to get into Organic Chemistry because it was full! It's not that she forgot to sign up or was lazy, it was full. She would audit the class and the lab for 2 weeks, sitting in the aisle of the auditorium where lectures were given, and she wouldn't get in.
Beckee- thanks for pointing out what I was going to say exactly!
As a California high school student, I looked out of state because it was cheaper. I ended up at a very expensive, private liberal arts college because it was CHEAPER than public university in CA. I was able to graduate in 3 1/2 years, they accepted my AP class credits, allowed for credit transfer from the local junior college and were generous with financial aid. While my friends in UC and CSU schools were still trying to cobble enough units together to graduate, I was working.
I had several friends who also applied to pubic universities in other states, moved there and took up 'residence' early on so they would be eligible for in-state tuition. Two went to Alaska where the tuition and living expenses were dirt cheap in comparison.
You also need to consider that most students don't pay the "sticker price" with Ivies (and many schools). Financial aid (need-based) is significant.
An interesting point though is the achievement gap. I went to Cornell, which was the perfect choice for me, and although I was GT and worked my tail off, I graduated with a 3.2 in Economics. Had I attended a lesser school, I would have likely gone pre-med and wound up probably attending an Ivy medical school. I half-joked about this with my sons' pediatrician, who went to Yale and Harvard Med, and he concurred - that I probably could have done quite well at Yale or Harvard for med school even though I couldn't come close to cutting it in pre-med at Cornell.
If you're considering post-grad work, it may pay to go to a top research school that isn't as competitive as the Ivies.
We're in Florida which currently offers "bright futures" scholarships for resident students who attend State Universities. Our (mildly GT)daughter earned a "full ride" through this program, but opted to accept a full ride athletic scholarship to an out of state University (Maryland), instead. In addition to her athletic scholarship, she was a "presidential scholar" at the University and was actually able to bank $1000 per semester all four years at school. She had considered the Ivy's (Brown, Dartmouth and Princeton came calling), but because they don't offer athletic scholarships, their financial aid packages only covered about half of the $50,000 yearly undergrad fees. That didn't make sense to her, hence her decision. Anyway, she's in grad school now...at the University of Oxford. Her entire Masters degree, from OXFORD, will cost $42,000...that number includes a lovely on campus flat with weekly housekeeping, dining hall, tuition and books. A much better deal than American Ivy's...and even most American small liberal arts schools (the one in our town costs $50,000+ per year and no one outside of our area has ever even heard of the school!) And, Oxford is a terrific place for her family to visit (just home from a lovely trip...our son (highly GT nine year old) is inspired. Heck, undergrad is less than $20,000 yearly...we have a few years...but maybe we'll look into it when the time comes. Take home message...reasearch ALL options...start early...and find the best fit for your student and your family.
If you're considering post-grad work, it may pay to go to a top research school that isn't as competitive as the Ivies.
This is one of my themes.
Granted, I got a 3.2 in chemical engineering, but that had more to do with a complete disinterest in engineering than than the school per se.
The average GPA at Harvard in 2005 was 3.45 http://www.gradeinflation.com/Harvard.html . Princeton has taken measures against grade inflation, so for the class of 2009 the average GPA was only 3.39. Gifted students who are admitted based on academic potential rather than legacy status, a sports scholarship, or minority status likely have slightly higher GPAs on average. Maybe it's harder to have a 4.0 at Harvard than State U, but a 3.5 is attainable for many of the students admitted.
By LISA W. FODERARO When Princeton University set out six years ago to corral galloping grade inflation by putting a lid on A’s, many in academia lauded it for taking a stand on a national problem and predicted that others would follow.
But the idea never took hold beyond Princeton’s walls, and so its bold vision is now running into fierce resistance from the school’s Type-A-plus student body.
With the job market not what it once was, even for Ivy Leaguers, Princetonians are complaining that the campaign against bulked-up G.P.A.’s may be coming at their expense.
“The nightmare scenario, if you will, is that you apply with a 3.5 from Princeton and someone just as smart as you applies with a 3.8 from Yale,” said Daniel E. Rauch, a senior from Millburn, N.J.
The percentage of Princeton grades in the A range dipped below 40 percent last year, down from nearly 50 percent when the policy was adopted in 2004. The class of 2009 had a mean grade-point average of 3.39, compared with 3.46 for the class of 2003. In a survey last year by the undergraduate student government, 32 percent of students cited the grading policy as the top source of unhappiness (compared with 25 percent for lack of sleep).
In September, the student government sent a letter to the faculty questioning whether professors were being overzealous in applying the policy. And last month, The Daily Princetonian denounced the policy in an editorial, saying it had “too many harmful consequences that outweigh the good intentions behind the system.”
It's 4.0 at State U being a good bet for admission opportunity for grad school.
I'll use Duke law as an example. They have a hard cap of about 10% of the student being permitted to attend from Duke undergrad.
So, if you have your heart set on Duke Law and you go to Duke undergrad, you had better do better than those other 20 people who also are from Duke who want to go to Duke Law.
Whereas if you are me from State U with a 3.2 in engineering, they let you in because you had the highest LSAT score from State U who wanted to go to Duke so that they can establish "geographic diversity". About 50% of the class came from Harvard/Stanford/Dartmouth, etc, whereas about 50% of the class came from State U.
What we really need is a statistical analysis here, but we don't have enough data. We just have a few data points and conventional wisdom.
(I performed a wholesale Excel spreadsheet analysis on law school admission to determine where I needed to apply based on LSAT/GPA - using spreadsheets for calculation was one of the things I actually learned in engineering.)
It's 4.0 at State U being a good bet for admission opportunity for grad school.
This reflects exactly my husband's and my experience with medical school. He went to a top Ivy undergrad, I went to an Ivy-equivalent top engineering school. We both did well but not the "top" in our major. Ended up at the same good medical school, but both had the experience where we didn't get interviews/admission to any of the top medical schools. We both also noted that others from our high school who had underperformed us in HS, and went to State U, DID get into top Ivy medical schools.
Needless to say, undergrad ended up being far more challenging of both of us than medical school, largely due to the peer group being a more "competitive" and level playing field compared to us.
This all being said - even in retrospect I wouldn't trade my experience at my undergrad - it was an amazing and life-changing experience to be in a place like that with so many like-minded, gifted individuals. So even though it was harder to "stand out" I gained so much from the kinship/friendships I developed, that I value those 4 years above all others during my educational journey. And - my family and my husband's got significant financial aid from both of our expensive institutions, such that our families (middle class incomes) could pay.
The ideal is to do really well at an Ivy league or very competitive school. I think it's harder to get really good grades at a State U. than at a Stanford/Ivy (having been either a student or on the faculty at both types).
I think it's harder to get really good grades at a State U. than at a Stanford/Ivy
Huh. Really? Why do you think so? My husband, who went to a small, prestigious liberal arts school (not an Ivy) and then later attended grad school and taught at a large state school, would totally disagree with this, I think.
Perhaps a large survey class in a hard science or math is more demanding at a state school? I could see that. Less student support.
“The nightmare scenario, if you will, is that you apply with a 3.5 from Princeton and someone just as smart as you applies with a 3.8 from Yale,” said Daniel E. Rauch, a senior from Millburn, N.J.
“The nightmare scenario, if you will, is that you apply with a 3.5 from Princeton and someone just as smart as you applies with a 3.8 from Yale,” said Daniel E. Rauch, a senior from Millburn, N.J.
-snip-
Are employers really looking at GPAs?
Law firms demand law school transcripts (several years out). But that's only for associate/of counsel positions.
I thought that too, Dude. The quote sounds a little, uh, uptight to me. (NIGHTMARE SCENARIO!!!) But I have no experience with applying to grad school. I assume that's mostly what that guy is talking about, though perhaps for very competitive positions elsewhere (entry level analyst at a management consulting firm or something?), employers do really scrutinize GPAs.
Top private schools, with their generous aid, have been among the most affordable options for poor students for a few years, but rising tuition has only recently sent California State University and University of California prices shooting past the Harvards and Yales for middle-class students.
Poor students. Hmm. Later they talk about middle class. Ie a family making 130K a year. If that family has any equity in their home, the school will expect them to cough some of it up.
Quote
$24,000 for a Cal State freshman's tuition, on-campus room and board, supplies and other expenses. At Harvard? Just $17,000, even though its stated annual tuition is $36,305. The same family would pay about $33,000 for a freshman year at UC Santa Cruz.
I am highly skeptical of this article because it mixes apples and oranges. Harvard tuition is 36K a year and then on top of that is living expenses. SO the real cost is 50K a year or more.
As someone who turned down an Ivy and Caltech to go to a state school, I did the math back then with tuition 1/3 the cost today and even with some hefty support, I still could not swing it. I do not see how a kid could to it today, either, without going into serious debt.
The real scandal is why the UC system charges so much. IIRC the number of admin positions is greater than the faculty positions and many of the faculty do not teach. Limit admins to 15% of the faculty and require every faculty member to teach three courses a semester. Require every course to have at least 10 students. That would cut the tuition by 60-70%.
Austin, a family member of mine is employed at a UC university and would definitely agree with your analysis.
Anyway, you are saying equity matters while it was stated upthread that it doesn't, at least for Harvard. I must say, I'd like to know the deal on equity, since our house is certainly our largest asset here (we bought before the bubble and live in a market that has suffered less than most).
I am highly skeptical of this article because it mixes apples and oranges. Harvard tuition is 36K a year and then on top of that is living expenses. SO the real cost is 50K a year or more.
If, as stated below, the average grant for Harvard students receiving financial aid is $41K, and the total cost is $54.5K, including room and board, the net cost is $13.5K , which is probably less than the out-of-pocket cost at some state schools. The article says families of students on financial aid are paying $12K on average.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/03/record-for-financial-aid/ Harvard College will increase financial aid for undergraduates to a record $172 million for academic year 2012-2013. Since 2007, Harvard’s investment in financial aid has climbed by more than 78 percent, significantly outpacing increases in tuition. More than 60 percent of students at the College are expected to receive need-based grant aid. Families with students on financial aid will pay on average $12,000 toward the cost of tuition, room, board, and fees, with an average grant of more than $41,000.
“Need-blind admissions, supported by generous financial aid, is the bedrock of Harvard’s effort to attract the most talented undergraduates in America and across the globe, regardless of their ability to pay,” said Dean Michael D. Smith of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. “A student’s economic circumstances should never be a barrier to attending Harvard College.”
Since 2004, Harvard has dramatically reduced the amount that families are expected to pay to send a child to Harvard College. Harvard has a policy of “zero contribution” from families with normal assets making $65,000 or less annually. Families with incomes up to $150,000 will pay from zero to 10 percent of their income, depending on individual family circumstances. Families with incomes above $150,000 may still qualify for need-based assistance.
For students not receiving need-based aid, the total undergraduate package cost is scheduled to increase 3.5 percent, to $54,496. Students, applicants, and their families can estimate their costs by using the recently launched
You can play around with the various buttons to see what they expect you do dip into.
Given that most Tier 1 State schools and quite a few smaller Liberal Arts schools give NMSF a free ride tuition-wise, the discrepancy becomes even more glaring.
And "poor" kids get pell grants (5500 per year) and other help when they go to state schools.
See here:
So again, its not an apple to apple
Best I can tell, a "poor" NMSF going to a Tier 1 state school will spend about 6K per year to attend out of pocket. That's 24K vs 23K x 4 = 92K for Harvard. That makes the state school kid 68K ahead when that is said and done. Assuming the Harvard cost was a loan, then the net present cost of the Harvard degree would really be around 140K.
You can do it yourself. The estimated cost is 23K per year for 130K income and a reasonable amount of equity after Harvard ponies up.
She mistakenly included equity in her primary residence, which Harvard excludes, as I explained at http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....cs/126438/Re_Wasted_Time.html#Post126438 . According to kcab in this thread, "Equity in primary residence is not counted in the EFC (estimated family contribution)", so excluding home equity is not unique to Harvard.
Originally Posted by Austin
Assuming the Harvard cost was a loan, then the net present cost of the Harvard degree would really be around 140K.
Harvard financial aid does not include loans.
http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do "We do not consider home equity or retirement accounts as resources in our determination of a family contribution, and aid packages do not include any loans. A typical student may receive over $150,000 in Harvard scholarship assistance over four years and the majority of students receiving scholarship are able to graduate debt-free."
If the bright people on this forum have misconceptions about financial aid, I bet that many students from less-educated families are making decisions based on incomplete information.
I appreciate the information. To be fair, though, my oldest child is in 2nd grade, so I haven't looked into this yet in any really serious way. (Yes, yes--saving is good. Etc.) The sole decision we have made is to put the money we're saving for college in our names rather than the kids'. We also semi-jokingly discuss limiting our income. I could make a lot more than I do, but prefer to work PT when the kids are little. There will come a time when I need to consider going back to work FT. If I do so, depending on what job I take, I will probably bump us from middle-class (true middle-class, as defined by the census...130K is NOT middle class) to UMC, which may actually be stupid in terms of college costs.
Ultramarina, the colleges only look at the year before your child enters college in terms of income (they certainly do look at the other assets you have accumulated). So starting midway through your child's junior year of high school is when that income starts to be inconvenient in terms of qualifying for need based aid. Of course... that is when your instints tell you that you need to work MORE because tuition is staring you in the face (and there is that nagging retirement account, and you can actually start to see that horizon more clearly as well by the time your kids go to college).
Good move to put the money in your name (colleges consider much less available for their costs from your assets than from your child's assets, and there is no longer any significant tax benefit in keeping assets in your kids' names, either).
I think it's harder to get really good grades at a State U. than at a Stanford/Ivy
Huh. Really? Why do you think so? My husband, who went to a small, prestigious liberal arts school (not an Ivy) and then later attended grad school and taught at a large state school, would totally disagree with this, I think.
Perhaps a large survey class in a hard science or math is more demanding at a state school? I could see that. Less student support.
I attended the University of Kansas for my undergrad (playing for NCAA championship tonight--woohoo!) and MIT for grad school.
For me, getting top grades at the University of Kansas was much harder than MIT. Perhaps it was the competitiveness of the honors track I took during undergrad, or perhaps I was more mature during grad school, but MIT was much easier.
The Ivies only very recently changed their financial aid policies. Most of them made significant changes as the recession started and alumni began questioning the size of their endowments and the requests for alumni giving.
I have an Ivy League undergrad degree and a "public Ivy" masters an the coursework for a doctorate. The rigor of my undergrad degree is much greater than even the doctoral coursework and the comps I did for the PhD.
For me, getting top grades at the University of Kansas was much harder than MIT. Perhaps it was the competitiveness of the honors track I took during undergrad, or perhaps I was more mature during grad school, but MIT was much easier.
I attended MIT for undergrad and grad school, and getting good grades in grad school was much easier than it was in undergrad. Just for comparison.
The ideal is to do really well at an Ivy league or very competitive school. I think it's harder to get really good grades at a State U. than at a Stanford/Ivy (having been either a student or on the faculty at both types).
I wonder if it depends on the type of course, but my husband would disagree and has a direct head to head comparison. He lived in a state where he was able to take college courses at State U as a high schooler (a State U that is considered to be academically rigorous and respected nationally). He then went to an Ivy for undergrad. Said it wasn't even close in terms of how easy the State U math and science courses were compared to the courses at the Ivy. He was able to fly through his assignments for State U courses often on the bus home, whereas his Ivy courses literally had him up against some of the top students in the world in certain subject areas and he had to spend hours/nights/weekends to achieve good grades.
From my own perspective being faculty at a State U. and having attended an Ivy-equivalent top engineering undergrad, I feel overall there are just a higher percentage of those profoundly/exceptionally gifted kids that blow your socks off at the Ivy/Ivy-equivalents than what my husband or I encountered at State U. Not every kid is going to do well though in an environment where such a high percentage are super-bright over-achievers, it can be overwhelming/depressing/a struggle to not be "the top" and can irreparably damage some kids' self-esteem. I certainly had to re-adjust my self-perceptions/identity, but for me, the 'downside' of no longer being "the best" was far outweighed by the upside of being with like-minded peers who "got me."
Good move to put the money in your name (colleges consider much less available for their costs from your assets than from your child's assets, and there is no longer any significant tax benefit in keeping assets in your kids' names, either).
It may be better to put college money in a 529 plan (that's what I am doing) than in a regular taxable account owned by the parent, because the gains in 529 plans are tax-free when used for college. The impact of a 529 account on financial aid is not larger than the impact of other parental non-retirement assets, according to http://www.savingforcollege.com/questions-answers/article.php?article_id=124
Bostonian, we have considered 529s but were advised against them. Now I sort of forget why, but this may have something to do with it:
Quote
Of course, schools can do whatever they want with their own money and they may develop their own policies with regard to the impact a 529 plan will have on any institutional aid eligibility. Some schools piggyback on the federal EFC, some rely on a different form called the CSS PROFILE, and some come up with their own formulas. State schools tend to rely on the federal EFC.
Anyone who decides to save for college with a 529 plan and then finds their child wants to attend a private college should ask the college about their policies surrounding 529 plans as part of the college selection process. This will be just another factor in choosing a school. If it turns out that your child will lose a substantial amount of institutional aid because of the 529 plan, you always have the option of simply taking all your money out of the 529 plan, although that can lead to taxable income and a potential 10% penalty on the earnings.
Not saying we made the right choice, however. It's still rather murky to me. We really ought to consult a professional about this some time soon.
The ideal is to do really well at an Ivy league or very competitive school. I think it's harder to get really good grades at a State U. than at a Stanford/Ivy (having been either a student or on the faculty at both types).
I wonder if it depends on the type of course, but my husband would disagree and has a direct head to head comparison. He lived in a state where he was able to take college courses at State U as a high schooler (a State U that is considered to be academically rigorous and respected nationally). He then went to an Ivy for undergrad. Said it wasn't even close in terms of how easy the State U math and science courses were compared to the courses at the Ivy. He was able to fly through his assignments for State U courses often on the bus home, whereas his Ivy courses literally had him up against some of the top students in the world in certain subject areas and he had to spend hours/nights/weekends to achieve good grades.
I am apparently the only contrarian in this bunch, as I pointed out earlier that my undergrad at the University of Kansas (KU) was much harder than grad school at MIT.
I will expand on this because it's related to the cost of university education. At least back then, KU competed for students by showering them with scholarships. I received enough to cover tuition, room, board, and had spending money left over. I was also accepted to other schools including Caltech (but not MIT) for undergrad, but that would been a pretty significant hardship on my parents, so the choice was pretty easy at the time.
The honors cohort I took most of my classes with was easily stronger than most students I saw at MIT. Those that went to grad school after KU ended up at places like Stanford, MIT, Cornell, UPenn, etc., so from that perspective there was no disadvantage. In my opinion, the only difference between a good state school with an honors track and an elite school is with the first set of job opportunities right after school. There are a number of companies that only recruit at the elites, which I learned about after MIT.
If finances are an issue, as they were when I grew up, you can do far worse than accept full ride scholarships at a good public/private school with a good honors program. Just don't expect it to be easy.
[/quote] I am apparently the only contrarian in this bunch, as I pointed out earlier that my undergrad at the University of Kansas (KU) was much harder than grad school at MIT. [/quote]
So I couldn't resist replying because my background leaves me uniquely positioned to do so - I went to HS in Kansas and many of my years-long classmates in middle/high school went on to enroll in KU's undergrad honors program while I went to MIT for undergrad. While these high school colleagues of mine were unquestionably bright, it also was true that it wasn't difficult for me to stand out amongst them throughout my secondary school career (and some of these ended up being the 'top' performers at the KU honors program). The undergrad students at MIT, however, (emphasis on undergrad) were at a whole different level. That's not to say that every single student I encountered at MIT was brilliant, but I had never been in 'shock and awe' at someone's abilities before arriving there. Also some of this is major-dependent, and I mingled with undergrads across multiple majors. There are some majors/departments that are less academically rigorous. But as a whole, I stand by my observation/experience that there are a higher percentage of phenoms and PG kids at MIT than at State U. Whether that is a good type of environment for your college bound kid is another question . And - it is true that my friends who did less well than me in high school but aced the KU honors program did get "better" or more prestigious grad school spots than I did. While initially discouraging to me, those tough years at MIT as an undergrad have made everything following (2 graduate degrees) seem like a piece of cake.
I think ultimately it's very person-dependent as to what works; for me I needed that undergrad environment where I was challenged unlike ever before or since, to develop an actual work ethic and drive, to humble me and allow me to form an identity beyond just academics. For others the shock of going from being "the smartest" at your high school to "average" at MIT can be too much for their psyche and they collapse under the pressure with that loss of identity, and so a university with less intensity/lower percentage of phenoms might be better, where they can stand out and still distinguish themselves, and likely get into an elite graduate school.
I would totally agree that an elite school does give an inside track to job opportunities - tons of recruiters came to campus and focused on those elite schools only. The other advantage I would add (which could also be an advantage of an elite grad school) is the connections made during that time - my husband and I both are from 'modest' backgrounds but were able to mingle and form friendships and rub elbows with people who have accomplished and are accomplishing amazing things, and already have some impressive potential internships set up for our own children .
If finances are an issue, as they were when I grew up, you can do far worse than accept full ride scholarships at a good public/private school with a good honors program. Just don't expect it to be easy.
I have zero experience with this honors track thing. How does it work? Surely you don't only take classes with other students in the honors track?
I wonder if the caliber of students at state school honors tracks varies by state. For instance, bright kids who might attend UMass certainly have a lot of other good local options, while I'd imagine bright kids in KS have far fewer high-quality local schools to choose from.
I was in the honors program at my State U and indeed, in that program, you do take all your core curriculum classes together as a cohort. They admitted only about 120 kids per year and we divided into small discussion-based classes with fellow honors students in the 60 "core" program hours.
We were always taught by actual professors, not TAs, in the program and the core hours were in literature, history, philosophy, math, science and economics and two colloquium classes. Outside of our core hours we were free to design any degree plan we wanted, within certain broad requirements. Our offical major was the honors program so we coud specialize in one area of or explore with our other hours, outside foreign language and civics requirements. It was a great educational experience.
So I couldn't resist replying because my background leaves me uniquely positioned to do so - I went to HS in Kansas and many of my years-long classmates in middle/high school went on to enroll in KU's undergrad honors program while I went to MIT for undergrad.
Nice to see another Jayhawker on this board. We actually agree on most things. Elite schools have students that are considerably more talented than the average State U student, and offer better job prospects and a better network. I would have attended Caltech if it was affordable at the time.
Originally Posted by mn28
While these high school colleagues of mine were unquestionably bright, it also was true that it wasn't difficult for me to stand out amongst them throughout my secondary school career (and some of these ended up being the 'top' performers at the KU honors program). The undergrad students at MIT, however, (emphasis on undergrad) were at a whole different level. That's not to say that every single student I encountered at MIT was brilliant, but I had never been in 'shock and awe' at someone's abilities before arriving there.
It's funny. That's exactly what I was hoping from MIT but was disappointed when I didn't get it. Many MIT grads are obviously quite bright. Having lived in the Boston area for about 20 years, I know several hundred of them through school, or work, and there are about 10 in my neighborhood.
Yet the single brightest person I have ever met to this day was in my honors cohort at KU, which consisted of the 1% of incoming students, (and I struggled to keep up with them). This particular person was an anomaly in his family. His parents never attended college, and thought he should go to community college! After landing at KU, he became president of a couple of groups, had an incredible gift of picking up languages, and later became a Marshall scholar. Oh and he had a perfect GPA through high school, undergrad (Electrical Engineering), and I would bet through grad school as well, even though I barely saw him study.
I agree there are a lot of bright kids at MIT and other top privates.
But, I wonder how much of it is prep vs innate ability?
I went to a tier 1 state school with some "prodigies" from Eastern Europe. They were pretty impressive at first, but by the end of my senior year, I was equal or better than them in most areas, as a result of hard work and the program. As were a few other US students. And I was not too impressed with the MIT profs who visited the school. The only exception was a Caltech prof who I learned a lot from.
While networking and school name may have cachet for undergrads, by the time you are 10 years out from school, real life performance begins to sift people out. Many of my classmates from HS had SAT scores < 1400 and went to state schools are now deans, top surgeons, or are at the top of their fields or corporations. The ones who did go to the MITs really have not achieved much relative to the rest of us.
For this reason, I consider MIT and Stanford regional colleges. I do think they have some great departments, but the world does not revolve around them.
College Navigator, a government site, has statistics on net prices of colleges. Here are numbers for Harvard
YEAR AVERAGE NET PRICE 2009-2010 $16,459 2008-2009 $16,156 2007-2008 $19,482 The net price for 2009-10 is further reduced by an average of $2,413 by scholarships received from outside sources.
and UC Berkeley
YEAR AVERAGE NET PRICE 2009-2010 $15,765 2008-2009 $14,818 2007-2008 $13,863
"Average net price is generated by subtracting the average amount of federal, state/local government, or institutional grant or scholarship aid from the total cost of attendance. Total cost of attendance is the sum of published tuition and required fees, books and supplies, and the weighted average for room and board and other expenses. Full-time beginning undergraduate students who were awarded grant or scholarship aid from federal, state or local governments, or the institution."
The cost of Berkeley has almost risen to that of Harvard for the 2009-2010 academic year. Harvard is probably cheaper for low-income students and more expensive for higher-income ones.
The cost of Berkeley has almost risen to that of Harvard for the 2009-2010 academic year. Harvard is probably cheaper for low-income students and more expensive for higher-income ones.
The averages hide the details and gotchas that matter.
An NMSF kid who can get into an Ivy will get a much better deal at a state school tuition wise. Many will get full rides. Having to cover just living expenses.
And if you rely on financial aid, and if you win some minor scholarships, ie 2K a year, that will count against your financial aid. You still have to pick up the bucket. The Ivy just gives you less.
Whereas at the state school the minor stipends can go to your benefit, ie for living expenses. It did for me.
It gets t the age-old question if the name or ranking of the school really matters. I think it does. For myself, having the Harvard Med name on my resume helped me get into very competitive fellowships. Only 5-10% of doctors in my field are female. On the other hand, my clasmates at my rural Midwestern public high school were still the smartest people I have met, and that was still the most competition I have faced academically. It will be interesting to see if the name brand of the Ivies still hold p when the cost per year goes beyond $100,000.
It gets t the age-old question if the name or ranking of the school really matters. I think it does. For myself, having the Harvard Med name on my resume helped me get into very competitive fellowships. Only 5-10% of doctors in my field are female. On the other hand, my clasmates at my rural Midwestern public high school were still the smartest people I have met, and that was still the most competition I have faced academically. It will be interesting to see if the name brand of the Ivies still hold p when the cost per year goes beyond $100,000.
You are confusing undergrad (which you should get paid for above a certain level of intelligence) with grad school (which you will have to shell out $$$ for).
Even I'm not arguing that you shouldn't go to Harvard for med school (or law school) and pay a ton of money to do it. If I had the opportunity to go to Harvard for grad school in either medicine or law, I would have done it for the reasons that you state in your response.
. And - it is true that my friends who did less well than me in high school but aced the KU honors program did get "better" or more prestigious grad school spots than I did. While initially discouraging to me, those tough years at MIT as an undergrad have made everything following (2 graduate degrees) seem like a piece of cake.
.