<p>While most of the calculation may be accurate, there is a lot of details may have been missing.</p>
<p>I am looking at my DD’s bill from U of Chicago (#6 on Forbes)</p>
<p>They missed a “Class fee” of $950/qtr, if it is added to the total, Chicago would be #2 in Forbes calculation, just about $1,000 shy of the #1 Sarah Lawrance. Chicago also charges about $500 more on student health insurance than SL, so the difference is miniscule in light of the total cost.</p>
<p>That is so funny that you posted this list today. Just this morning, I was having a conversation with D. One of her friends was trying to talk her into having at least one reach and he decided she should apply to University of Chicago. I explained to her the agony she would feel if she got into Chicago and then we told her we couldn’t pay for it. </p>
<p>Her friend is an only child. I told her that we certainly had enough saved to send ONE child to Chicago, but that we had three kids to educate, so the money had to be split thre ways.</p>
<p>How can you take the list seriously, on Stanford own website, it states that the COA is $55385 which should be #2 on the list. The difference in price of some of these schools are just noise.</p>
The key issue is their last statement: Our list reflects what freshmen entering any of these traditional, four-year colleges and universities can expect to be billed for tuition, fees, room and board The ancillary fees are not part of their calculation, but are assessed by all schools, at different rates. They didn’t “miss” these fees, and they aren’t “errors”. They just didn’t include them, so as to compare apples to apples. They also mention that they took into consideration the schools that are very generous with FA.</p>
<p>Actually, there was another of the most costly schools in the top 25 of Forbes’ Best Colleges List: Harvey Mudd. It comes it at number 22. There is another error though. In the description of Harvey Mudd on the costliest schools slide show, it says that the enrollment is only 200. That is the approximate enrollment per class. The total enrollment is closer to 800. Still small, but not as small as 200. Mudd also comes up high on the lists for the highest salaries of the grads.</p>
<p>Choosing what data to include is their choice. I dont see that as an “error”. Perhaps they should title the article differently, but they are pretty clear with what measurements they use in their data. Since the other rankings seem to follow the same protocol, there must be a good reason for this. </p>
<p>Schools individually estimate the overall COA, including such things as transportation, which is a highly variable cost based on ones proximity to school.</p>
<p>Also, the article says it is speaking to the FRESHMEN costs, so I am guessing the Harvey Mudd reference of 200 is to the 200 in their freshman class.</p>
<p>If you read the blurbs about each of the schools on the list, they mention the variable ancillary fees, including
<p>I’m not a fan of these magazine-based lists – any of them. They are in the business of selling magazines, so I wouldn’t place too much faith in their methods or their results. </p>
<p>At least they mention financial aid. We knew S2’s school was near the top of the heap cost-wise, and we made sure he was aware of that when he applied – i.e. that acceptance didn’t guarantee attendance. Luckily their FA package made it more affordable than any of the other schools on his list, and for that we are very appreciative.</p>
<p>MP, ref your post #2. Unless you are paying full COA, you really should not take any school off your list because of the published COA. </p>
<p>Such list is only useful for a particular application pool - EFC too high for any need based aid yet a couple thousands in COA makes a big difference. For, I guess, about 50% of the application pool who qualify for FA, this list is really meaningless. The school’s FA policy and size of their endowment are much more important.</p>
<p>For example, we have two kids at college now. Total toal published COA is over $115,000/year. There is no F&^$&!~#*^ way we could afford that. But with generours need based FA (are so grateful and appreciative), we are able to pay the rest of the bills. </p>
<p>In other words, for those who qualify need based FA, you ought to apply more of these elite schools.</p>
<p>I think that these lists are in many ways useless. You really have to go over the individual school’s website to see how much an individual school would cost for YOUR child. Some great and expensive schools are need blind and thereby affordable if you don’t have a lot of money and are a great student. Unfortunately a lot of these schools don’t give a lot of pure merit money because MOST of their kids are top tier. Other schools give a LOT of merit money. We have had to take most of the most expensive schools off of our list (we sound like YOU, Missypie!) but there are some great schools looking for top tier kids …particularly the strong LAC’s that are just outside the top tier, and many of the hallmark State schools, in or out of state.</p>
<p>These are the most expensive colleges in the country only if you have an income and assets that are sufficiently high to make you aid-ineligible. But in that case, price may not be a deal-breaker for you.</p>
<p>If you have a low income and assets, these schools may well be among the most affordable for you, since they tend to offer more generous aid. With a family income in the low six-figures, my Ds have attended Harvard for about the same cost as room and board at their state public U with a full-tuition scholarship. One D also got into Georgetown (on the list) and received an aid package that would have made the cost comparable to Harvard’s after-aid cost.</p>
<p>Now a really useful top 10 list would be most affordable colleges for families that fit the middle class demographic!</p>
<p>BTW, I fully agree that magazine lists are there to sell magazines, not to provide accurate or useful information (just as the content of TV political pundits’ shows are there to boost ratings, not to be informational or insightful).</p>
<p>I did not debate with you on the other thread because it is off the topic. In that thread I was just making a remark of the high cost of private colleges, should I said Chicago is one of the most expensive college in America, there would be no argument. At the time, I did believe Chicago is the most expensive college, I did not know SL is even higher. The real truth is, all America Private colleges are pretty expensive for some one paying full frieght. The actual college bill may vary few thousand dollars as reported in Forbes or eleswhere, but in the context of “total cost”, including traveling, visiting, parents weekend, personal expensese, they all add up to a number that is well over $60K mark.</p>
<p>Take NYU for example, they have different costs for each college, Tisch is costing $2K more than CAS. But that $2,000 difference is miniscule in comparison of the true living expenses in Mahattan.</p>
<p>Regarding the blurb on Chicago in the Forbes illustration. I don’t know where the “living on campus” costs was quoated from, but if you add $2,850 to $53,604, that is exact number on my bill, that is why I said they missed the $950/qtr fee. The student insurance cost of $2,220 is an accurate figure as well.</p>
<p>All in all, I think these are just magazines trying to sell advertising to the higher education industry. It is idoit to compare COA costs based on such small differences. A good dinner on a campus visit will ionate the added cost, never mind the airfare/car rental/hotel costs for the visit. Colleges are one of the luxury items for American to spend their money on.</p>
<p>The Forbes list, according to the magazine itself, is based on “tuition, fees, room and board.” Cost of Attendance has nothing to do with it. Glido is correct that not including a fee that is required of all resident undergrads is an error. A fee charged for the use of a Steinway piano by a music major or a lab fee for a biology major would not be. They are real fees, for sure, and will add to an individual’s cost, but they don’t apply to the majority of students.</p>
<p>This cracks me up. Any school that costs more than 50,000 a year is costly. Whether is is 53, 55, 51. Who really cares when you get to this level. My daughters school “Northwestern” is 39k for tuition, and add room and board, flights to California, sorority, and really, does it really matter… Are you really getting your money’s worth? Not certain, but glad I can afford it. Oh yeah, here’s the real rub. I got to pay more tuition this year so that they could offer more scholarships.</p>
That was the point I was trying to make. These schools are all quite pricey, but on that particular list, UofC came in at # 28, IIRC. </p>
<p>My thought would be to lump these schools into price categories; i.e. those that are 50k and above, those 45-49,999K, etc. I don’t agree that omitting the ancillary fees is an “error”, as not all schools charge them. Some schools require the school’s health insurance regardless of whether a family has private insurance (which to me is a ripoff) and others dont. Some charge a fee to use the recreational facilities, others dont have such facilities. So this particular rating scale uses specific criteria, and that is their perogative. It isnt right or wring- it is simply their choice. In fact, some schools offer different rates for different mealplans, even to freshmen, and may have slightly different dorm fees depending on whether the student is in a single, double, triple, etc. So in reality, this whole thing is silly. I agree-- merely a way to sell magazines. Cosmo uses clothes or relationship articles, Forbes uses $$ articles.</p>
<p>And here are the top. The next group and the next are virtually identical. We are parsing very small sums of money, except perhaps for SL. A lovely school but their physical plant is falling apart.</p>
<p>Their pedagogy makes the cost so high. All labor costs I should think.</p>
<p>BTW: I didn’t think the expenses of NYC an issue at all. Barnard and Williams were almost identical in cost excpet that DS squeaked through the no loans window. Gone now at Williams.</p>
<p>Each earning all spending money via work/study, so costs to me were identical. Years DD was off the meal plan were even cheaper because she ate frugally. Of course, she doesn’t eat that much.</p>