<p>As faculty at a flagship I must say that I would walk bare foot through the snow to avoid sending my kids to most state schools (I’ve worked at flagships in three states). Fortunately I don’t have to suffer. I just have to live in a sane-sized house, avoid the oversized meals most restaurants serve, and clean up my own mess. . . it’s really amazing what people consider suffering.</p>
<p>H and I both went to state schools. My siblings all went to state schools. My kids are all going to state schools. Many of my relatives and friends went to state schools. I think we all turned out fine.</p>
<p>I don’t think I could live with myself if I spent my days producing a product that was not good enough for my own family.</p>
<p>yeah, there’s nothing more annoying than asking, “how do people do it” and then to read how they actually do it. So ridiculous that other people can afford something that’s important to them by prioritizing their spending and budgets.</p>
<p>My H is also faculty at a state flagship and we sent our kid to an LAC. My H gets way more research funds then D’s profs do and probably spends less time teaching then they do too. He’s producing a great product, that he is proud of–thank you very much. The product just doesn’t happen to be undergrad education.</p>
<p>That’s not to say he hasn’t had some great undergrad seminars and developed close relationships with some undergrads, but it takes a lot more work on the part of the kid at the State flagship than at the LAC. If it works for you, great. It didn’t seem like the best environment for our kid, and with merit scholarships the price differential was not all that much.</p>
<p>I agree that schools that are known for their post doc research arent necessarily the best place for an undergrad education.
I would consider many flagships to be in this category as well as some private universities.</p>
<p>However there are public lacs and small to medium sized public universities that dont have grad students running sections, that do have profs needing undergrads to assist with research and seem terribly attractive as a place of learning to me because they are just large enough to have enough students to offer classes and activities than a smaller school can support.</p>
<p>I certainly understand the attraction of a tiny school where everyone has so much in common from day one, but I also understand students that would find that claustrophobic.</p>
<p>George…my kids are nice NOT brilliant kids. I got plenty of good advice on this site, and hope I am paying it forward some. My kids both went to private universities…but it is because my husband and I BOTH working were able to pay the bills. We were able to encourage our kids to attend college out of state. If we had not had these financial resources, our kids would have gone to a public university in this state. We would not have lived beyond our means, and the kids would have been fine. Neither of our kids had an ice cubes chance in hell of getting accepted to a meets full need school. They just didn’t. We parents were grateful that we had minimum family debt before the college years, and decent enough jobs. </p>
<p>Not everyone on this forum has kids who are HYPSM prospects…and not everyone has sent their kid to private universities. </p>
<p>The point of this thread is that you have to figure out how YOU are going to pay for YOUR kids to go to college, and hopefully at a college where they will be happy…whether it is community college, public university, or private university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We all do what we have to do to support our kids to be happy, productive citizens. Hopefully, if that’s what they accuse you of, you’ll still have time to cut them out of your will as well.</p>
<p>Thumper, that was an extremely eloquent post. It is so very much on point, and much appreciated.</p>
<p>As for diversity, at my H’s flagship U, 90% of the kids are in-state and race can’t be counted as a factor. In terms of combined geographic, and racial diversity, my D’s LAC is hands down more diverse.</p>
<p>Quilah, that’s interesting, since all of the LAC’s we are considering for our D are much less diverse than our state flagship, even if you remove the ‘geographic’ component. I’m not minimizing that aspect, but I don’t put as much stock into it as others might.</p>
<p>The only Lac that we considered that was even remotely diverse was Occidental with 50-60% white.
But, there is more to diversity than skin tone.
And possibly I had heard too many stories from parents at Ds high school to think that it was a good fit for her, even if we could afford it.
Im kinda burnt out on lacs, I guess.</p>
<h1>86 wrote “I don’t think I could live with myself if I spent my days producing a product that was not good enough for my own family.”</h1>
<p>I actually have spent decades of my life (not days) working to provide great undergraduate education in a system that is increasingly dysfunctional. Many, many faculty work 60+ hour weeks because there is no other support system for students. Yes we do research, but most of us at state schools understand that taxpayers want good undergraduate education (and the country needs it, too). In the last decade the cuts to public higher education have been massive. They still spend some on sports, but not the libraries, the classrooms, or faculty hires and salaries. A few state systems remain fine, but the vast majority are under economic attack.</p>
<p>Here’s an article on cuts and tuition raising at state schools, but remember that tuition raising is accompanied by cuts in services.[Higher</a> Education Cuts Risk Damaging State Economies For Years To Come: CBPP Report](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Higher Education Cuts Risk Damaging State Economies For Years To Come: CBPP Report | HuffPost College)</p>
<p>You might google “cuts to higher education” if you think state schools are the same as they were 20 years ago.</p>
<p>And in my State, all power to the faculty who are tied in knots by an administration which seems increasingly devoted to an “edifice complex” (gorgeous dorms and amenities) and top notch/award winning sports teams at the expense of reinvesting in instruction and undergrad education. I don’t blame the faculty at all- they are not the people who decide that a bond issue is “worth it” to build a new basketball stadium whereas the engineering labs are “fine just the way they are”; despite the fact that the game of basketball hasn’t changed meaningfully in 50 years whereas nano; biotech; cutting edge composite materials science, etc. didn’t even exist 50 years ago.</p>
<p>And you’re blaming the faculty for not wanting their kids to be in an environment where undergrad education is last in line for funding??? And when a tenured professor dies or retires, he or she is replaced by three adjuncts who each get paid for precisely 12 hours a week, no office space to meet with students, and then have to race between three different colleges to carve out a barely full time job?</p>
<p>please.</p>
<p>Great response, Mamalion. To interpret your previous post as someone not doing your job was surprising. No one individual can change an entire institution. Those who are touting state schools are, I trust, championing state support for them. The situation is getting dire around the country.</p>
<p>X-posted with blossom. Also a great response.</p>
<p>For those asking how higher income families manage to come up with the money to pay the full cost at top schools, I would suggest they think about how families manage at the other end of the spectrum. How does a family with $30,000 income manage to pay rent (or a mortgage), utilities, and insurance, and still have enough to put food on the table? They do it the same way that the high income family pays tuition - by making sacrifices, and setting priorities.</p>
<p>I have seen many characterize such sacrifices as being too much to ask. Perhaps part of the problem is that most families in the US don’t truly live within their means. Part of living within your means is preparing for the future, whether that is retirement or sending your kids to college. The choice seems to me cutting back 5% over your child’s life (18 years, plus 4 in college), or 25% each year of college. Yes, if you save that 5% over your child’s live it will be an asset, which will be hit somewhat by the financial aid formulas. But I’m sure it has been easier on us to cut back 15% (3 kids) all along, than it would be to suddenly have to cut back 25% over the next 11 years (when they are in college). As another poster has also done, we structured our mortgage to pay off last August, and when that was paid off, continued to put that money into a money market account. That account now has enough for our first year EFC. That will result in no new sacrifices for us. Other local families with similar finances are not so lucky, because they have spent rather than saved. Their EFC will be slightly lower, but they will have to borrow to pay it, AND cut back on the luxuries they’ve learned to enjoy.</p>
<p>OP, if you can’t afford to sell or borrow against your assets, then you will be in the same position as many famies - telling your child that you can’t afford unlimited choices. If those choices are of significant importance, and a high priority for you, you will find a way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s pretty much it. </p>
<p>People make choices about how they want to spend their surplus resources, and then they rationalize those choices by describing their preferences as virtues. That is why these arguments will never end. “Living like a monk” (i.e. no cleaning service, old cars etc.) seems like a small price for me to pay for a luxury education for my kid. However, I can’t imagine I would ever spend 60K on a car, which is just a hunk of depreciating metal to me. I can’t claim to be better than someone who would tell junior to go to the state school so the family can retain the BMW or the larger house. My choice doesn’t hurt me because I don’t value what I am “giving up.”</p>
<p>No - no one can change an institution, but together they can.
You can leave if you don’t like it but why disparage others who still find some value there?
How bad can it be if you choose to stay?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was this your experience at your state school? And if so, can you blame others for wanting to avoid it? </p>
<p>Those practices certainly don’t describe the work lives of faculty at state schools I’m familiar with.</p>
<p>As the spouse of a humanities professor, yes – faculty work 60 hour weeks, they are just not physically in the office all that time. Teaching, research, writing, supervising grad students, commenting on papers, meeting with students – it may not look like hard work, but like other professionals, it is not work that ends at 5 or 6pm and it usually includes substantial work on the weekends. Most faculty have gone into academics because they are passionate about their field and they are, by nature, people who would not thrive in a hierarchical employment setting. </p>
<p>Few profs, except law and business faculty and science profs with well-funded research from outside sources, make salaries well into six figures. 20 years into his career as a humanities prof, my tenured spouse makes well under $100,000. with only the prospect of 1-2% merit raises (and he is highly regarded and very successful in his field). Some chaired humanities faculty – generally faculty in their 60s – make $150k+, but that is not the norm.</p>