@Alexandre I disagree because a family that does not qualify for need-based financial aid should, in my opinion, invest the extra money for their kid to go to a school like Harvard or Stanford; the kid deserves to have their spot at one of those types of schools. My original question is about CC’s general opinion on whether a family should spend the money to send their kid to a top but lower ranked private school vs. a somewhat similarly ranked state flagship (if they reside in a state such as California, Michigan or Virginia). Of course, this question is irrelevant to a family who considers the ~$160k difference to be “chump change.”
Another data point that I wanted to include is that tuition at Cornell’s contract colleges is $20k less than full sticker price for New York State residents. That is a net savings of $80k, a pretty penny, over four years that a student gets simply for having family residing in the state of New York. This data point is important for my concern about value; why should I as a California resident, who benefits from large tuition remissions at my local UCs and CSUs, pay a premium to attend a school that gives tuition remissions to its local state students that I am unable to benefit from? To me this is a conversation similar to: why pay out-of-state tuition? Although I understand that Cornell is a private school, not a state school. If the debate was between a lower ranked UC and Cornell the choice would be Cornell, but a debate between Berkeley or UCLA and Cornell has a little more meat to it (for a CA state resident). My overall question is: should I not be thinking about this scenario this way? Is Cornell’s NY State Resident tuition, cheaper than sticker price but still quite expensive compared to the in-state rates of state schools, significant in the discussion of the school’s value? Thank you.