“If my kid were to get into Columbia and U of Colorado, and my kid were to say, “Hey mom, I want to go to U of Colorado because it is a better fit for me ( outdoor, ski).” Guess what, I would have said, “Suck it up and go to Columbia for 4 years. You can go skiing in Colorado after you have graduated(on your own dime).””
People can differ on this too. When my D actually did get into Berkeley, UCLA and Utah and said “I want to go to Utah because it is a better fit for me (outdoor, ski, dance for 4 years for free).” Guess what, we said “It’s your life and your 529 to spend as you want. We are very happy with your choice”. I hope we would have said the same if she got into Princeton too, and I know she would have made the same decision. A year on, we are delighted and she is too (both with the outdoor/skiing and the dance).
But @compliler some of us were prepared to pay college costs for our kids regardless of the college. As I noted upstream…we worked with our kids to craft the application lists of colleges. We agreed with every college to which they applied…and we were willing to pay for any of school to which they were accepted.
Simply put…we vetted the colleges before they applied.
We did not require them to matriculate to the least costly acceptance…and neither one did.
Two working professional parents…and one salary paid solely for college costs.
@socaldad2002 - The study I read showed students that were accepted and then declined an Ivy for whatever reason, went on to doing as well financially as those that actually attended the Ivy, which makes a lot more sense than just applying to the school. So, it seems the drive and motivation it takes to get in is the real factor, not the school.
As for me, I doubt I would ever cosign on loans for a prestigious school, and my son would not choose one that cost a lot. He knows he gets to pocket whatever is left over from his college fund, so he’s looking at the bottom line even at state schools. Of course, we’re low income, so the reality is, the Ivies would probably be cheaper anyhow.
I guess if income is your only measure of the value of a college education than you have your answer… I however think that the college journey and the education one gets is as important as the ultimate outcome (money). What does it really mean to be an “educated” person.
In fact if making a good income was the only goal, in the last 25 years all one would have needed to do was not go to college and use the COA money to pursue and buy income producing property in any large metropolitan area in the US. I’m sure that owner of property will have as much yearly income as the average Harvard (or any other college graduate) by now.
Maybe college is a little bit more than just ultimate income outcome? Maybe not to some?
Two of my lads would have done horribly if I’d made them go to Columbia. They’re intelligent enough, but that setting would have been stifling to them and they don’t care about applying themselves to academics in a rigorous sense even though they are quite capable if they had the desire (high IQs). We allowed them to be in settings they loved and they thrived, doing well now as adults too.
My other lad would have done well anywhere he went. He’s that type of personality. He despises NYC, so why make him go there? There are other schools he’d like better. He chose some of those to apply to and also did quite well.
I can’t fathom telling a kid to “suck it up” and go “there” when there are so many fabulous schools around that can be a better fit for them. It’s their life to live, not ours.
Our kids are not “mini - mes.” We had our chance for our experience already - for better or worse.
The only “suck it up and go there” advice I could fathom is if X was the only affordable option and the alternative were, “do you want fries with that?”
College is primarily about ROI and getting the right credentials and internships. If someone wants an education, a library card will give them free access to more books than they can read in a lifetime.
Depends largely on the SES level and social capital (connections) of the parents. Students from lower income families without connections must put financial ROI high on the criteria when deciding whether to go to college and when choosing college and major, because too much debt or not attaining a useful credential to enter the labor market without needing an extended job search with reduces the likelihood of escaping financial difficulty. Those from higher income families who will financially support their college attendance have the luxury of considering more than financial ROI, since their families can pay for them to afford college without much or any debt, their connections can help the new graduate enter the labor market in a career-track job, and family money can also give a safety net in case of spells of unemployment or extended job searches for the best job instead of needing to take the first one available.
"are you able and willing to pay such as at least two childs attending, for example, Columbia and Yale without FA instead of in-state tuition for the U of Colorado? "
I’m not sure if this is the first time you mentioned more than one child, but that would definitely change things. That would be $280k per kid maybe more, vs $120K, then it would come down to for me major, if it’s stem, I’d stick with state school, non-stem, I’d lean to top-20.
@compiler - I did pay full fare for 2 kids to go to Cornell. One of them got a full scholarship at a very good LAC and we turned it down because I believed quality of education at Cornell was better. I also paid K-12 private education for both of them even though we lived in a very good school district. There were times when paying for those tuitions was not easy (think of those market down turns), but I would do it all over again. Both of my kids are self supporting young adults doing what they like. I do not think D1 would be doing what she is doing if she has gone to the LAC.
Columbia was D1’s first choice because she wanted to be in a city. She was not very keen on Cornell at first due to its location, but it was the best (ranked) school she got into. I did have to convince her to go. I reminded her the reason for her to go college is for education, everything else was secondary. As soon as she showed up she said “it was a bit of heaven on earth,” due to its natural beauty. She loved her 4 years there. I think she would have thrived at Columbia as well. I am one of those parents who only take “fit” so seriously, and I wouldn’t leave it completely to an 18 year old when it comes to me paying 250k+ (go to whatever school I could afford).
I give a standing ovation to @socaldad2002 for this comment:
I went to Williams College for undergrad. And my career? I chose one I found fulfilling and still love after 26 years: public elementary school education. Yep, my colleagues with the same jobs went to state universities or to local private colleges with huge acceptance rates. We ended up in the same place in terms of salary or career prestige. Who cares? I am a better thinker and writer, with a richer intellectual life, for having gone to Williams. I went there for four years of immersion in “the life of the mind.” I loved it. It was an amazing experience in its own right.
This is not to say that everyone should pick that type of school, and of course one can find smart peers and intellectual challenges at a wide range of colleges and universities. It is just to agree that, in choosing a college, considerations about the experience of those four years matter every bit as much as likely career outcomes.
In regard to the ROI comment someone made above:
Students from “lower income families” most likely will have a full-ride at top colleges. Their educations will be virtually free.
Only if they make it in. I see oodles of these students every single school year. The vast, vast majority do not. They don’t even make the grade to apply. Many are fine getting acceptances, but not at the schools that provide full need - esp without loans. Every now and then we get one and it works out great for them, but assuming most are in that category is a fallacy.
That said, the education one gets in college is far more than one can get in a library. That fallacy assumes all education is academic and written. It’s not. Different schools provide different opportunities beyond a grade in Bio 101. Even the Bio 101 courses can differ.
Oldfort, your kid got scholarship and your family may be rich so that you can only care about “fit” regardless of how much. Well, that is not what we want to discuss because there always have some parents existing who can offer very expensive kid’s educations without reduction of their life quality.
Very few students get admitted to these colleges, and those from low income families are even less likely to get admitted to these colleges. Most of these colleges draw about half of their undergraduates from the top ~3-5% income/wealth families (those who pay list price).
Also, about half of kids will see parental divorce. If the parents are disagreeable (common after divorce), the kids will have difficulty getting any financial aid at these colleges.
austinmshauri’s comments. “If you already know what you’d do, I don’t really understand the point of this thread.”
austinmshauri, you don’t really understand the point of this thread because you do not know the difference between the compiler’s question and compiler quoting from the others. LOL!
@Creekland and @ucbalumnus — The original question was would you pay for a top 20 college if you were admitted or would you pick a state university. It assumes the person deciding has that choice. The question was not whether most people will be admitted to such colleges.
And then someone said that only wealthy families have the luxury of that choice, and that lower income families can’t pick top private colleges based on “fit” due to ROI considerations. My point is that the students from lower incomes who are capable and lucky enough to be admitted to top 20 colleges most likely will have very generous financial aid, so there will be no reason for them not to attend for financial reasons.
The dilemma is only for affluent (top 5% or so) families who do not qualify for financial aid at the top colleges. These are the people who have to consider if the cost of a top 20 private is worth it or not. And for those families, it is a matter of what they prioritize. Is a certain type of experience or “fit” worth the expense to them?
A low income student who does get into such a college with full FA will probably pick it due to it meeting the student’s primary “fit” criterion: lowest net price / best financial ROI. But few low income students get that option.