<p>The distinction between student’s family wealth in the public vs. private schools is an artificial one. Looking at Kiplinger’s list of the best value public and private schools, once you get past the first 5 or so privates with the very best aid, the average debt at graduation for the publics and privates starts to look almost the same Best Values in Public Colleges, 2011-12 Best Values in Private Colleges, 2011-12 ** There are kids from all financial strata at both publics and privates**</p>
<p>I agree. I wrote:</p>
<p>And, frankly, since many/most flagships don’t meet need, those schools can also become bastians of well-heeled students. Most lowish income kids don’t get enough FA to attend.</p>
<p>The issue seems to more depend on whether the school is great with aid or not.</p>
<p>*Ohh- M2 you mean where the gapping kills the kid? I thought this was just about the class difference thing. (You won’t like the snootiness; they’ll have more than you do.) Now I think you mean literally a school the kid cannot afford. Not just whether his rich roomie has a Mercedes and a Mac and can fly home (or better) on breaks. And, I was confused because the kids who have the coveted goodies at D1’s school are both richer- and poorer- than we are. No, a kid should not go to a school he can’t reasonably afford. But, without knowing his aid package, we can 't assume that by his socioeconimic status. K? *</p>
<p>Yes… at pricey schools where kids with low EFCs tend to be largely gapped, the student body tends to be more affluent (not mean, just affluent).</p>