lefthandofdog

It's too bad American colleges have found this way to make money, but I can't say I blame them. A generation ago, one of the benefits of students spending a year abroad was that they saved a great deal of money. They did set off with a backpack and found their own way, for the most part. Communication with parents wasn't anywhere near the daily exercise it is today. An older friend of mine with 4 bright children sent the oldest two to England because they couldn't afford to educate them here. Apparently they didn't have much to eat that year either, not so much a reflection on English cuisine as the family's stretched budget.

I don't think today's parents or students would accept this state of affairs. They expect everything to go smoothly, from housing arrangements to transfer of credits, and in the end have to pay for that. When we lived in another country, one of our neighbors (also American) was the resident advisor for his state university system's program at the local university and it was his full time job to keep students happy and on track. There were a few hold out colleges in this country that charged their students the rate at whatever foreign college they attended, but they all eventually fell in line and charged the home school tuition. Many justify it by having financial aid carry over to outside programs, but then you realize that at many top schools, the majority of students are not receiving financial aid. For every daughter mini has, there must be 4 or 5 paying full home tuition for the experience. If people don't like it, they can delay the experience until after graduation.

Laylah

I think it's not just US colleges that use this as a way to make money - I suspect that most Oxford colleges, particularly the poorer ones (one of which I attend) use their JYA students as a source of income. It's not a coincidence that the poorer colleges have more JYA students than the richer ones. For example, the year I entered my college, there were around a 110 'regular' undergrad degree seeking students, and 30 JYA students. I couldn't believe what those guys paid for tuition. It was even double what International students pay, which in itself is at least 3 times more than what UK/EU students pay.

marite

The point Mini makes about his D is a good one: students on financial aid do get to go on JYA without losing the financial aid. At least I hope that is the case at most colleges. At Harvard, students on finaid who want to participate in a summer program (including summer abroad programs) do not have to work as part of their finaid obligations.

nikrud

D1 spent a semester in Africa, where her room and board costs were probably extremely low -she lived in a hut and ate only food that could be cooked w/out electricity, etc.
We understood that by paying her full LAC cost directly to the college that someone was profitting greatly. I questioned the LAC on this...I was told that she was paying for her colleges cost of the credits earned. When I pushed about the huge descrepancy in the cost of the JYA program (where the total cost of attendance was published, and was to cost her college less than 1/2 of what we had to pay!) I was told the rest of the money left over provided for other kids to go who could not otherwise afford it. We get 0 financial aid, but I was told that FA students awards cover the costs of the semester exactly as they would in the US. Hmmmm. This has brought back up some rather harsh feelings I have had toward the LAC regarding the 22k we paid, and the 12k the program cost. Ugh.

marite

I don't see the logic of the explanation given by the college. If the students on finaid could not afford to go abroad, they would stay at their home college where they would continue to receive finaid. Sending them to study abroad would be cheaper for the college; so sending All students abroad benefits a college, regardless of how the monies saved from sending full fare students abroad are used.

mini

"For every daughter mini has, there must be 4 or 5 paying full home tuition for the experience."

I doubt it. At least at my d's school, the majority of students going on these programs (which cost MORE than the home tuition per student to run) are receiving need-based aid. And I have no reason to believe that, at any college, the number of those going abroad who receive need-based aid is different than those on the home campus.

jyber209

I am so glad that the study abroad "profit center" used by many colleges has been exposed. Specific costs and programs may vary, but in general, profit is being made at the expense of students' families.

Kudos to nikrod's LAC for at least making full disclosure that, "the total cost of attendance was published, and was to cost her college less than 1/2 of what we had to pay."

We were aware of the discrepancy between what colleges collect and what it actually costs to study abroad, and as a result declined to play into the game. Our D instead used her AP credits to take a leave of absence from her school for fall of her junior year and combined that with the previous summer to get herself a six-month paid teaching experience in China, where she taught management employees business English. Her exposure to the culture and the professional experience were far greater, we feel, than anything she would have gotten in a classroom, and she saved us lots of bucks. It is amazing to me that so many buy into the heavily pushed abroad programs without considering other options.

ses

I really do believe that some of any given college's profits go to those in need of financial aid and/or to pay fees associated with maintaining their relationship with specific programs/institutions overseas AND to paying for the Study Abroad office's operating costs. Could all of this be paid for with LESS money? Sure.

But you really are paying for a college to ACCEPT THE CREDITS. You are paying for the privilege of going abroad. You are also paying so that others have the same privilege.


marite - I find it rather desipcable that you would deny fin aid kids the right to go abroad. According to your logic, because it is cheaper for the college to have 100% of the students pay full cost, no needy kids should be admitted.

The ability to pay should not be a determinent in whether or not one is able to have an oppurtunity. Some families are lucky enough to pay to go abroad, others are not. That is just how it is.

mcgilldad

To give credit where it is due--my daughter back in 2002 attended a seven sisters college. She spent a junior year in South Africa, similar to nikrud's child. She went thru a third-party organization in England. The college (Mt. Holyoke) let her leave school for a year, pay only the fees to the South Africa University ( Durban and Fort Hare), and be readmitted the following year with full credits for time in Africa.
Even with my trip over to visit her, and her own transportation, we saved over 17k.

I did not realize how lucky our situation was.

marite

SES:

You totally misunderstand my post.

It is to the benefit of a college if most students, whether on finaid or not, go abroad.

If tuition at the American college is $18k per semester, and the tuition at a foreign university is $10k, the LAC gains nearly $8k minus costs associated with running the study abroad program. These savings can be less if the American college runs the program abroad, as in the case of Reid Hall for Columbia, but many do not.

These savings hold whether the student is on full ride or pays full fare. In the case of the full fare student, the family pays the same amount even if the foreign university is cheaper; in the case of the full ride student, the college saves the difference between its own tuition and what the foreign institution charges.

So, if a student on finaid decides not to go abroad, the college has to cover the $18k and forgoes the savings. This is why I said that the explanation given by the college (that the full fare students are paying for the finaid students to study abroad) does not make sense. Unless it costs more for a college to send its students abroad (and I don't believe this is the case), it pays for the college to send as many of its students abroad regardless of their financial status.

And that's before we consider housing. At Dartmouth, it was made clear to us that one of the benefits of the study abroad program was precisely relieving the housing crunch. In other words, colleges are able to admit more students than they otherwise could since at any one time, there are some who are not in residence.

Finally, as a matter of principle: if indeed full fare students are helping cover the costs of those on finaid, it should be made clear at the outset. I am sure that many families would like to get some tax benefits from such a sizable, if, involuntary, charitable contribution.

Puzzled88

"This has brought back up some rather harsh feelings I have had toward the LAC regarding the 22k we paid, and the 12k the program cost."

I also felt mad all over again when I read the NYTimes yesterday. We had the same experience, paying the full comprehensive fee for our eldest D's LAC while her overseas program was much less expensive. What really infuriated us was that we had to battle the college for a small reduction in the fee because the program didn't cover any food costs. Apparently they expected us to pay for her food twice. Needless to say, when they later contacted us for donations, we told them we'd already given.

When we toured colleges with our younger kids we always asked what the policy was on payment for study abroad. In both cases, they chose colleges which charge only a small administrative fee and we pay the cost of the overseas programs directly.

xiggi

Mini, the issue of the JYA costing more than tuition is not that important. We all know that the cost of attending a LAC exceeds the tuition charged by a fair margin. And that is a point that has been by the researchers at your UG alma mater, and I believe repeated by you.

Further, the issue of financial aid is not relevant to the parents of students who are receiving little to none of it. Twist and churn it all you want, but there are no good reasons from charging the same tuition when the costs are vastly different.

What is the policy at Smith regarding studying abroad? Does someone pay the tuition at Smith regardless of the tuition cost abroad, or does the school charge the exact cost as the colleges that forfeit the potential profiteering do?

That is the only question that needs to be answered, and the answer determines the probity of the school on this issue.

cheers

Foreign universities absolutely use international students as a source of cash. International students are routinely charged two to two and a half times MORE than the state-subsidized students are charged. I believe Oxbridge fees are L11pounds to L12K pounds for intl students and a fraction of that for EU students. http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/pra/UG3%200708updated.pdf

This is a known fact--and Americans aren't the only ones at the mercy of this cash operation. The UK and EU university systems spend millions recruiting students from Asia, SE Asia and the Middle East--and not just for university. There are all sorts of 'education' opportunities on offer--for all ranges of education--from secondary through post grad. The overseas students pay a premium for the privilege.

anxiousmom

At Rice, you pay a $250 study abroad fee per semester, and then you just pay the cost of the abroad program you attend DIRECTLY. If it is cheaper, you save money. If you have financial aid, Rice writes you a direct check, and you pay the program/foreign university directly.

Here's the list for affiliated Rice programs for one country, Australia:
University of Adelaide: www.international.adelaide.edu.au/
Arcadia: www.arcadia.edu/cea*
IES: www.iesabroad.org
IFSA-Butler: www.ifsa-butler.org
ISA: www.studiesabroad.com
University of Melbourne: http://www.futurestudents.unimelb.ed...ex/index.html*
SIT: www.sit.edu/studyabroad
Study Australia: www.study-australia.com
USAC: www.usac.unr.edu*
University of Tasmania: http://www.international.utas.edu.au...road/index.php

If you don't want the affiliate programs, there are also "Exchange Programs" that Rice participates in, where you go study at a foreign university, and a student from that university studies at Rice. There is also work abroad exchanges. Also, you can petition Rice to study abroad and direct enroll at many overseas universities - it is not hard to do. Rice is very flexible about that, and it also offers lots of scholarships to study abroad, in addition to the need-based aid that travels with you.
So, Rice may accept kickbacks or free travel from some of these programs, but it doesn't seem to have affected the opportunities available.

I actually think it is great that these non-profit programs provide "kickbacks" in the form of travel for administrators to go and check out the study abroad programs. Wouldn't you want someone from your kid's university to be able to travel to the program abroad for free to check out and make sure that it is well-run, legitimate, rigorous, etc? Would you rather that money came from parent's pockets? Not me!

mcgilldad

I do not agree that it is "great" for college administrators to travel on kickbacks. As a manager of a large government agency, I often get "opportunities" from vendors to visit their home offices so I can become familiar with their products or personnel. I never accept these offers, nor do my staff.

If a trip is important enough to us, then it is important enough to put it in the budget and pay our own way. No program, non-profit or not, gives away free trips--there is always an expected "cost". If schools feel the need to investigate JYA programs, then they should pay for their own administrators to go, even if it comes from parents pockets. (Because it all eventually comes from our pockets anyway.) You might find much less junkets, if the school has to pay. For example, do you like your physician attending a pharmaceutical conference in Hawaii put on by the drug company?