Perhaps better is you can stay at the Ritz, Marriott, Courtyard or Fairfield.
In the end, they all accomplish a night’s sleep.
Some sound better or make you feel better (more scenic, better materials, food).
None necessarily make your upcoming day better.
In the end, OP is an alum who feels excluded from continuing his family’s attendance ties.
It stinks but OP is making the choice. And there’s nothing wrong with the choice.
His kids will start a new legacy.
Assets and income are what are used to pay for the dollars spent on hotel stays, flights, etc. Therefore they are being used (indirectly) to determine who gets free nights, upgrades, etc.
Assets and income being used to assess how much one needs to pay doesn’t only go in one direction. For the most part, people with fewer assets and income are not advantaged by that calculation.
Higher education is one of the only areas in which people with less income and assets are “advantaged” and, even there, those with the most need are still the most disadvantaged as most of them aren’t in the position to apply to or be accepted by schools that actually cover full need.
I think we’re saying the same thing. College is unique because some pay full MSRP while others pay nothing (or close to nothing) for the exact same experience.
In terms of elite colleges, you see the widest variance because elite colleges charge the most, give out the fewest merit aid, and cover full cost for low income students.
I consider loyalty points as a “rebate” of all the dollars spent. So yes, I guess if youre spending a ton of money, you get a small discount in total costs like volume buying. But upgrades and free rooms arent really “free”. It’s based on total dollars spent.
If we are looking for analogies why not stick to college costs? Wouldn’t a better analogy be a college that charges different tuition rates depending on a student’s SAT scores or GPAs? Is a lower price for students who score about 1500 SAT or 34 ACT less objectionable than a lower rate for students based on their household income? Perhaps the concern is about “deservingness” of aid. Who deserves the greater subsidy?
That wont work at elite schools because almost all their students are at the very top range of all academic (and non academic) criteria.
D26 is the Valedictorian and had a 1580 SAT. That’s probably the majority of students at Brown.
Likely but not necessarily. Maybe you have credit card benefits. Maybe, like me, you earn your stays, via travel you didn’t pay for (work did).
But it’s all getting into the weeds.
OP feels maybe the school has gone too far. When enough agree, the school will change.
Franklin & Marshall was no merit til a few years ago. Guess what - had to change the model. Now 25% get merit in addition to 61% getting need.
Midd is successful. Like BMW, Mercedes, or Luis Vuitton they cater to a customer base. No different than Kohls does vs Nordstrom.
OP has decided Midd has changed. Maybe they have. Many businesses do.
In fact, Hyundai is alive and thriving because they did. A college is no different.
OP’s mistake is looking at how it was founded. That’s not relevant to its place in the higher educational business landscape today.
There are also things like age of the parents. When the parents are already retired before their child starts university it becomes rather difficult to make up for any loss of savings though income after the child graduates. For a retired parent in their late 60’s or in their 70’s, money sitting in the bank looks a lot like retirement funds. Similarly, small business owners in many cases have most if not all of their net worth tied up in the business. They cannot both sell off their business and still maintain their income.
There is a question of whether an elite college education is worth $400,000. There is another question of whether the way that schools calculate need reflects a family’s reality. At first I was thinking that these are different questions. However, I am beginning to think that they are very closely related in the sense that in some cases “need” is calculated in a way that for some families just does not work. We were one such family.
We might also argue that the existence of expensive elite private schools is not harming anyone. If they can find a business model that works for them, then good for them. We do not have to attend if we do not feel that it is worth the cost relative to the alternatives. We can wait until we are getting a (short in time) master’s degree, or a (fully funded) PhD, and then attend an elite private school, at least for students who ever get to that point and who can get accepted.
But I still agree with OP’s original point that at least for us, relative to the affordable alternatives that are out there, we did not find it worth the cost to be full pay at a private college.
So just to clarify what I think is similar and what is different about luxury hotels and luxury colleges:
Luxury hotels very much find ways to charge different prices to different potential customers based on what they think will be revenue-maximizing for them in the long run. But for the most part such programs are self-funded, so ultimately such programs typically have to be supported by some internal analysis of why any discount ends up being worth the cost in the long run.
I think colleges also find ways to charge different prices to different potential customers, but what is “odd” to me is they also get charitable donations that help them do that. It wouldn’t be so odd if those gifts were all going to the most needy students, as that kinda makes sense. But de facto a lot of gifts are benefiting even the wealthiest students, including the “full pay” ones.
As a result, these institutions are operating their undergraduate programs at a large and perpetual loss, because NO student is paying enough to cover their share of operating costs, and a decent percentage (often around half give or take–per the latest CDS it looks like Middlebury was around 48% receiving institutional aid) are paying even less.
This would never work in a for-profit industry, but apparently there are plenty of donors around looking to support institutions like Middlebury. Again, it strikes me as odd so many people are happy for these colleges to be using their charity in that way, but that is what it is.
I get that. My whole point of that post was that while % of net worth may have been the relevant question for OP, that question is not translatable across the population to get a useful universal (or anything close) answer. You raise a number of additional reasons why that is the case. For us, whether it is “worth” the extra cost likely will not be the right framing, but that is because we can afford all of the options D26 is considering and we want her to be able to choose whichever she thinks will be best regardless of cost (again given that we can afford all of them). From a pure economics standpoint, there is no case to be made that some of her options will be “worth” the cost difference. But, life is not all about economic utility and we are in the privileged position to be able to afford the “luxury” product as some have described it (not how I would frame it, but going with it for the purpose of this post.) Our calculus would be different if we were not.
I note although I use that “luxury” framing, the intent is really just to emphasize the nature of the choice. If you have enough financial resources, you will inevitably end up using them in ways other people would see as unnecessary, but you particularly value. And vice versa–the people who wouldn’t value your uses as much as you will then instead use those resources in ways you wouldn’t value as much as they do.
The intent of this observation is really just to help parents feel fine with whatever budget parameters you might see as reasonable. The fact other families may be doing something different is not surprising nor should it be concerning. As long as you figure out what works well for your family, balancing all the different possible ways of using financial resources, then you have done your job.
In our house, a significant chunk of our net worth at the time DS was nearing high school completion had been created and specifically earmarked for his college education. We fully expected to spend those funds for that purpose. Isn’t that what college savings are for?
I would guess that most families are spending - as planned - a large percentage of their savings for college and that for most, a graph of their net wealth would show a dip over those years.
That, of course, is a different topic from whether the premium paid at any school -’ Midd in this case – is worth it to any particular student. Very much YMMV, if you are fortunate to get to drive at all.
I’m finding the entire premise of the thread- and some of the responses- confusing.
Middlebury doesn’t vacuum money out of your brokerage account. If the financial calculators show that a family will not get need based aid, they will pay for Middlebury (or any other college) using past earnings (savings) current earnings (cash flow) and future earnings (loans). Every family will figure out what that mix should look like. So a family with an “under 4 million dollar net worth” is likely to be able to cash flow some of their college expenses– if they choose to. Or spend down their equity/investments. Or borrow against a life insurance policy, liquidate some of their retirement accounts, take out a HELOC if they’ve got a huge chunk of equity in their home- etc. Nobody is telling this family how to pay for college- just that Middlebury will not be giving their kid need based aid. (and I don’t know that there are a lot of folks who think they SHOULD be giving this kid need based aid. Maybe- but not in my world).
I know people IRL who will “humble brag” that paying full freight at the kid’s top choice college would have required giving up the ski vacation, spending Christmas week in Akron with Grandma instead of St Martin or The Bahamas, putting off the home renovations on the beach house, etc. So the kid dutifully heads off to the “cheapest yet still respectable” choice, and life goes on. And that’s fine. But complaining that even though you have the money but don’t want to spend it on XYZ is still gauche in my book. No matter what XYZ is.
My kids weren’t interested in Middlebury- too small, too rural, too cold. But I would have happily paid for it if they had been interested. It has a lot of what I value- academic and intellectual rigor, superb teaching, serious students with a broad range of interests. I made many “life choices” along the way so I could have paid for Middlebury- many choices that friends, family members and acquaintances did not refrain from criticizing. But nonetheless, people can choose to buy a 17 year old a new jeep for a birthday (I keep my mouth shut), spend more on a cruise than I’d spent on vacations in five years (I tell them I can’t wait to see the photos), a blowout catered party for their 25th wedding anniversary (I guess the wedding they didn’t have?) etc.
Why is it that paying for college somehow goes under the microscope as “Wow, they are real dopes to have paid for XYZ university when everyone knows the kid could have gone to ABC university for a fraction of that?”
On the question of faculty vs. staff- ask yourself who should get cut first- the nutritionist in Dining Services who makes sure the gluten free kids get a balanced diet, the learning specialist in the tutoring center who makes sure that the kid with LD’s can still pass organic chemistry, the disability specialist in the housing office who can modify a dorm room depending on a particular student’s access issues, or the psychiatrists in the student health center who are on call 24/7 in addition to their clinical slots for the suicidal, the bipolar, the anxious, etc.
College administrators aren’t fans of this “mission creep” any more than the general public is. But telling a kid “if your anorexia isn’t under control, you can’t start freshman year here because we cannot keep you safe” is no longer appropriate- I am told, usually by irate parents who pick their kids up from a residential treatment program for eating disorders and assume that they’ll be dropping the kid off at the NEXT residential treatment program- i.e. college.
according to the chart posted above, a family making $40k would be paying almost $8k in billed costs, so 20% of income (and that family might not have any assets, and might have more than one kid in college). Maybe there is some wiggle room there, but if that’s the stat they post, it is likely those students (as a group) are paying the $7700 in room and board costs.
That’s the group I think are going to be excluded from attending. They just don’t have the money.
Note that those are average costs across an income range. It doesn’t mean everyone with $40k income pays the same $8k cost. For example, you mentioned not having any assets and having more than one kid in college, both of which reduce costs below the average.
According to Middlebury’s NPC, the minimum output of the calc is $3.6k, split as $2.6k parental contribution and $1k loan. A $50k (or $40k) income family with low assets gets this minimum cost. However, if this was instead a family with $1M in savings who had a low tax reported income year, then cost would increase to a much higher $51k ($50k + $1k loan) with just 1 kid in college, or $31k ($30k + $1k loan) with 2 kids in college.
While Middlebury is not as generous as the Ivy+ colleges that are regularly discussed here, this is lower cost than typical for in state publics. According to Middlebury’s website, they have the most students from MA, so I’ll use U Mass as an example. Entering the same stats with low income + low assets in U Mass NPC, I get $3.6k for Middlebury vs $15k for U Mass. $15k/year appears to be the minimum output of the U Mass NPC, regardless of income and assets.
Welcome to the group @jbip29 . Sorry to read about your dilemma. You’re not wrong.
The image of Middlebury 2026 is a school for wealthy kids with a small pocket for lower-income EDs, regardless of what the CDS figures tell us.
It’s no longer a school for “donut hole families.” Neither is Tufts ($80k+ per year and a real good shot at the tennis court trailer dorm rooms, lol.) It went from ED2 to the prep team for us pretty quick.
Stinks that you feel like your alma mater has evolved in an opportunistic manner. So many of others have as well. Colgate, Wake Forest and Villanova come to mind.
I know a fair amount of Middlebury-type students studying over in Europe for half the cost. It’s worth doing some homework if we’re talking about a 2027 high school grad.
Ultimately, Middlebury means something in financial/consulting recruiting circles. Something also to consider. I don’t believe that $80-90K/yr for an art degree is very ideal, but that’s us.
Best advice? Any kid who could get into Middlebury should have a host of quality admissions to choose from. They just have be open-minded about the options (larger campus vs elite SLAC, T30-T50 school with a lower sticker price than T10 LAC.)
A lot of students here applied to 10,15,20 schools in recent years. It’s not fun, but it’s not 1995 anymore.
Hang in there, @jbip29
Has there been a negative change in FA or affordability in recent years?
The Chetty review includes the period from ~2000 to ~2015. During this period, Middlebury had an extraordinarily high >20% of student body from top 1% income families (~$700k/year income in 2025). The majority of Middlebury families were in top 5% (~$400k/year income in 2025). Median income of Middlebury families was the 6th highest among all colleges in the United States – far above all of HYPSM… At the time, Middlebury had the wealthiest student body among “need blind” colleges in the United States. Middlebury also had few in the lower income groups – only ~15% from below median US families and fewer than 3% from bottom 20% income families.
However, in more recent years, there has been a notable increase in measures associated with not high income. For example, in the latest College Navigator year, 22% of the class received Pell Grants. Recent years have averaged ~double the % of class receiving Pell Grants as 15 years ago.
Like many higher endowment private colleges, I suspect compared to earlier decades Middlebury is on average getting more expensive for wealthy families paying sticker price or near sticker price. And Middlebury is on average getting less expensive for not wealthy families for which grants cover vast majority of costs. Overall average tuition revenue across all students likely has had little change after inflation, but the distribution of how much different groups pay has changed.
Specific stats have been posted earlier in this thread. Typical middle income families are not paying sticker price. For example, the earlier chart showed $100k income families had an average net cost of $18k. 91% of $200k income families qualified for grants, with an average price of $40k – less than half of sticker price. The cost distribution looks more like a sliding scale than donut hole. These are obviously still major expenses for middle class families, but are they really higher inflation adjusted cost for these groups than previous decades?
100% this!
Well, good food for thought here. That said:
The understanding around most folks here is that “The Donut Hole” (if we’re going to get into this) begins ABOVE $200K.
In 2000, the total cost to attend Middlebury was $32k (tuition $25k, R&B $7k.) In 2025, that number is over $90K ($70k tuition, $20k R&B and the $520 “Student Activity Fee, lol.) That’s an increase of over 280% in 25 years.
$1 in 2000 is worth $1.82 today, obv an increase of about 82%.
Truth is that families making between $300k-$500k are helping the wealthier families build that sliding scale that you referenced. I’ll validate your spirit that this may generate a “Poor you” response. I will add anecdotally, at the boarding schools parental mixers, you often hear the well-off families complaining the loudest about their “full-pay” $60-65k tuition. These are the same parents paying $90k annual tuition at T50 schools. These complaints aren’t coming from the generational wealth crowd. OP is frustrated looking down the barrel of $90k a year and wondering, “Is this truly worth it for a BA?” Did OP’s child ED and found out? Dunno, I’m just here to tell them that they are asking an extremely fair question.
Absolutely the question is fair. Putting the onus on the college to somehow make sure that the “non-generational wealthy” are able to maintain their current lifestyle, not tap into their savings, greatly appreciated 529’s or home equity, or take out even the relatively sane federal loans is what strikes me as extremely tone deaf. Especially when it’s coupled with “it’s so much easier being low income”. Guess what- try it for a month.
I can do basic math. I understand that paying for college with a $300K income and almost $4 million in equity is going to involve trade-offs which the “generational wealth” families do not have to consider. But NONE of those trade-offs involve food, shelter, transportation, or health care. So decide if you are willing to pay for Middlebury or find one of the MANY cheaper options. But don’t expect people who saved, lived well under their means, bought the cheapest house they could find, drove beater cars, and vacationed in a state park cabin to feel sorry for these “donut holes” who- in my experience- have been living significantly more expensive lifestyles.
A close friend of mine still insists that her kid’s first choice college “expected us to sell the beach house”. No they didn’t. And they didn’t consider your primary residence at all. But if the only available cash you could tap involved selling that beach house- that’s on you, not the college. Your annual taxes and maintenance on that beach house equaled a year’s tuition- that’s a choice you made.
Lets assume parents with college age kids are 50 years old and they make $300k and have $4 million.
How much of their disposable income would they had to save over 25 years to accumulate $4 million, especially considering that most of these people had to work for years to get to that $300k income.
Many donut hole families are the millionaire next door, driving their 15 year old Honda Civics, bringing their lunch everyday and barely eating out. Most of these people dont have beach houses.
The majority of donut hole families are not living expensive lifestyles, especially those who live in high cost states with high income taxes.