I suggested my own hypothetical: Flagship state U vs. 2 years at Podunk Community College followed by 2 years as a commuter to the local non-flagship four year state school.</p>
<p>I don’t have a copy of the USN ratings, but Bryn Mawr is a fine school with a top rate reputation, so I don’t think that fits the equation.</p>
<p>Obviously, a lot of other factors figure in. If a kid has an interest in a particular field, then schools with that emphasis have an obvious draw. The basic issue here is if parents have the ability to send their child to a much better school - using either the OP’s scenario or my alternative - and doesn’t, because the cost of the school is higher than the alternative.</p>
<p>How about a school that is rank lower 100s? Would that be the equivalent to a “mediocre school”? What makes a school mediocre? What ranking makes a school mediocre?</p>
<p>The OP’s scenario is of the parents taking $80,000 loans as a financial management tactic due to having large amounts of assets that would be disadvantageous to sell now, but which will easily eventually cover the loan principal and interest. I.e. the parents could easily pay for the kid’s college without any loans, but are merely using the loans to manage their (ample) assets.</p>
<p>It is not the more common situation of parents who just do not have the $80,000 (possibly due to poor spending and financial planning decisions in the past) and would have to borrow that much to find the money (if they could even quality for such a loan).</p>
<p>If the parents are in effect just shuffling money around, it seems to me to make sense to pay the extra differential for an education that is genuinely of higher quality.</p>
<p>I’d like to know where the line for a “mediocre state school” is being drawn, though, before I endorse the idea completely.</p>
<p>It seems to me that CC is fairly heavily populated by posters in the top 5% or so of household income. Many in that range would not even blink at $80,000 per child.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the average household income in the US is somewhere in the range of $50,000-$60,000 as I understand it. If people in this income did not have $80,000 available per child, I doubt that it would be due to poor spending and financial planning decisions. Of course, if the student gets into one of the HYPSM+Cetc schools, there’s not a problem with finances. But if the student is looking at an LAC that does not have a large endowment and that meets need through loans, it is a different scenario.</p>
<p>Just found this thread. Wow. Some excellent discussion and posts from many- but NOT the OP.</p>
<p>Those so called top 30 schools are debatable. A lot depends on the major- ie Harvard for computer science when you can go to many other much better schools? Wisconsin’s Chemistry department is comparable to Harvard’s- won’t nitpick those in the top ten. Those “top 30” professors and the textbooks used came from so many “lesser” schools. Some of those “top 30” schools don’t even have majors other good schools do. So many of those top 30 schools’ grads only get a BA/BS. </p>
<p>Our gifted son (SAT 2400, btw) wouldn’t even look at the Harvard campus when checking out MIT nor would he finish the Princeton application- did not like them. We could have funded any school but couldn’t make son apply. Also- Many of the top 30 schools just aren’t worth applying to if your flagship U offers a better curriculum in a chosen major. Those grad level UW courses taken as an undergrad in a top 15 or so rated math grad program trump many of the schools the OP considers “better”. </p>
<p>I would not hire the OP based on the traits shown in this thread. So lacking in maturity and real world experience. Plus, I doubt his/her intelligence based on comments made. My arrogant son could easily put him in his place.</p>
<p>Economics. Cost benefit ratios. Reality checks. It is interesting how in my day there was no need based aid so those pricy options were not available to me in an era when some students got “gentleman’s C’s” from elite schools. Now that we can afford it (both H and I worked hard) son wasn’t interested in the pricy options. The fantastic liberal culture at UW appealed to him more than many other schools.</p>
<p>OP would have gotten many more favorable comments if s/he had included many more schools where an equivalent education could be obtained (let’s hear it for public flagship Honors programs) and the student were gifted. Most colleges work for most students. The elite students find a way to max out the education wherever they go and then attend the elite schools for grad school if they wish. btw- how about those STEM PhD’s who can’t find jobs? </p>
<p>Could go on and on. The point is that the OP opened up a discussion to some very wise posters. Define success, happiness et al while you’re at it, OP.</p>
<p>Niquii77, it’s a hypothetical. The OP was “top 30” vs. “mediocre.” Is whatever university is ranked 101 in USN “mediocre?” Probably not, in my opinion. I think there are many colleges that are not ranked highly that are excellent. But that’s just my opinion. (And I’m not about to be lynched for calling someone’s alma mater “mediocre.”) You can make whatever assumptions you like. I’m just talking about general principles. </p>
<p>ucbalumnus, I’ve been giving that some thought, too. From my experience, for a family which has exhibited poor money management in the past it’s not likely to be a situation of $80,000 education cost vs. $80,000 saved for retirement, but $80,000 vs. whatever they’ve been spending their income on unwisely to this point. (Cars? vacations? gambling? eating out every night?) By borrowing the $80,000 they might actually get something of lasting value for their money. (What QuantMech says is true - a family with an income much below the $80 - $100K posited in the OP would be unlikely to be paying “list price” in many top schools. So we’re probably not talking about them for the most part.)</p>
<p>kluge, what makes a university “podunk”? Genuinely trying to see the factors that distinguish these “better” schools and these “podunk” schools.</p>
<p>
By “ability” you mean those parents who have significant money left over monthly to handle the monthly payments of the loans all the way to those who qualify for the loan and will hav to tighten their belt to pay the payments?</p>
<p>Problem is, families with excessive spending habits are unlikely to change them quickly and by enough to make taking large loans sustainable. Yes, they theoretically can do so, but the way people actually behave means that it tends not to happen.</p>
<p>If your parents are close to retirement and don’t think it’s wise to take out an $80,000 loan for you (and however many other children they have), then you have to play the hand you are dealt. This doesn’t mean NO college, it means not your dream school. Make the best of it.</p>
<p>Edit: I was responding to the OP upthread:</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Again: “chances are.”<br>
That doesn’t mean “in 100% of cases.” It means: “for most people this route maximizes the probability of achieving the stated goal, all other things being equal.” I don’t think that should be too controversial, but people seem to be reluctant to accept it - even here, on College Confidential! /
<p>^ mom, just so you know, you need the / the quote to be inside the [ ] :)</p>
<p>The old adage that one should attend “the best school you can afford” is generally a good one. But there are way too many folks with an unrealistic assessment of “afford.” Like all those NYU kids with six-figures worth of private or consigned parent plus loans.</p>
<p>In my neck of the woods, you can buy a wonderful home for 200k that will give you a lifetime of enjoyment and shelter. And yes, you can buy 200k worth of elite education that may give you a lifetime of mental joy and four years of enjoyment.</p>
<p>If a student finances the gov guideline of 30k for 10 years, they’re giving up maybe a car payment for ten years and a portion of their future finance-ability in terms of debt load ratio. That’s a trade-off usually worth making for a good education. Kids should be at least conscious of what that looks like or what it means before they toddle off to an away school.</p>
<p>But this continual undercurrent on cc of “having to have” whatever notion of a prestigious school they’ve fallen in love with “at all costs” really is both insidious and a fallacy. It’s like saying "I want to drive and I have to have four Porches…right now…because otherwise I won’t be the best driver I can be Well, you can wreck your life in a Porsche when you’re learning to drive, and you really can wreck your life by overspending on college because you were some sheep who drank the koolaid about “prestige.”</p>
<p>I’ve had clients from prestigious top ranked schools who frankly were dummies, at least insofar as running their businesses, and I’ve had clients who went to “Podunk” local schools who’ve demonstrated genius after a fashion. And it really is far more random than many folks think or might expect. I’ve also had employees from both extremes over the years and frankly my best never even finished school (but is truly great) and my worst was as pedigreed as they come. I’m not taking an anti-intellectual stand here…I treasure intelligence wherever I can find it I just find it all over the map!</p>
<p>I do wish that there was more equal access to higher calibre institutions socioeconomically and based truly on meritocracy, but in a hybrid private system that’s just never really going to happen except in extremes due to the structural gap of preparation.</p>
<p>So in the mean time, students need to make balanced decisions about what the impact if their college choice will have on their future, and parents need to scale the investment in a way that makes sense and is sustainable.</p>
<p>Sometimes on CC, one can get the impression that everybody attending so-called “elite” schools are drowning in debt while those at state schools aren’t. Which simply isn’t true. My advice to anybody looking at colleges is to stop paying attention to whatever John Doe is doing and pay attention to your own finances. You and only you know what you can afford, be it community, state or private college, no matter what the ranking US News states. Pay attention to your own financial picture.<br>
The best example I can come up with is this. Back when DH and I were married, 0% interest, one year free loans were popular for certain major purchases. Of course, what companies were counting on was people forgetting about this, spending the money in that year’s time and have to pay the high interest rate when the free year was over. However, DH and I took out a couple of those loans. Why? Because we had the money in the bank and simply let it sit there collecting interest for a year. When the time came to pay off the loan, we did so in full with no penalty. This worked for us because we understood our own finances. It would not (and did not) work for others. </p>
<p>collegehelp, the problem that I have with your #2 is your use of the word “won’t”. You make it sound so volitional. If your parents can afford to help you and won’t, then yes, I tend to agree that you might be getting shafted, and an attitude of getting shafted could affect your ability to succeed at the school you can go to.</p>
<p>However, you then posit the need to take out $80,000 in loans, which leads to me to believe that the parents cannot afford to send you to that “best college.” And this is where the disconnect between your answers to #2 and those of the parents you’re reading on this thread.</p>
<p>We see a difference between “your parents WON’T” and “your parents CAN’T”. And that’s the difference that we are trying to explain to you.</p>
<p>You seem to believe that an $80,000 is a drop in the bucket, economically feasible for any adults who aren’t living well beyond their means, frittering away their money on expensive cars and vacations. We’re trying to tell you that an $80,000 loan for one child’s education is a tremendous commitment beyond the financial capacity of many parents that would likely burden them well into their retirement years, and could negatively affect the education of other children in the family.</p>
<p>I am sorry that you do not understand the difference between “won’t” and “can’t”.</p>
<p>Chedva, actually that’s my “#2” and I used the term “won’t” deliberately. Everyone makes financial decisions every day. I have, and I’m sure you have. For a family with an income of $80 - $100K borrowing $80K for their kid’s four years of college education (as posited in the OP) is, in my opinion, in most cases unlikely to be a legitimate question of “can’t.” I paid for my three kids’ 12 years of college at a cost of well over $240K. I’m in my 60s and will have to defer my retirement several years in order to get my financial house in order after undertaking that responsibility. That was my choice. I understand the difference between “can’t” and “won’t.”</p>
<p>It’s a matter of prioritization. It seems to me that many in the Boomer generation couple complaints about the younger generation’s priorities (they all have smart phones, dagnabbit!) with a skewed idea of what is “necessary” for our own well-being. (I need that Mercedes!) I prioritize my kids’ college educations, for a variety of reasons. Others make different choices. But we all choose.</p>
<p>What if all 3 of your kids had insisted they only wanted to attend a “dream” school or would only settle for a $60,000 + private? Would you have been willing to spend $700,000 + to educate 3 kids? Where does a parent’s responsibility end in your mind? What responsibility ,if any, would you put on your kids for part of their education?</p>
I won’t speak for kluge, but the answer for me would be yes, if I could manage that expense without undue hardship. I’d be willing to incur debt to do it (within reason). And for me, it’s not a matter of “responsibility” since it’s something I want to do. I have some trouble relating to discussions of what parents “owe” to their kids.</p>
<p>Kluge, I was responding to your post, that the best match is a better choice, that “it is more likely that a given offspring will have a successful life if they attend a college which is a good match for their abilities and potential than if they attend one that isn’t” and the comments about the curb.</p>
<p>It’s germane in the context of this thread, where some talk about the duty to send them to the best match, how hard they saved, how it shows gratitude to their own parents, how some are SOBs who won’t help their kids, etc. Germane, because raising them right is more than about college and (going back to the original concept) how we take on loans we can’t afford. Just for the hope it offers them a better future. As if that college is the focal point.</p>
<p>Even the phrase, “because your parents won’t give you the financial assistance needed to do so,” makes this about what parents don’t do. I think our goals for them are met by many things we should do and paying more than we can afford is no magic. For them or for us. </p>
<p>Of course, we sent ours to the best we could afford and I have said it included loans.</p>
<p>Ucb- though we had a later example of parents who had other assets, that’s not where OP started. He doesn’t know his relatives’ financial position, was focused on the college and seemed to advocate the loans for the college, as a sort of knee-jerk “should be.” Not that it was money-shifting.</p>
<p>Kluge, why do you assume that, for a family that doesn’t have the savings: “it’s not likely to be a situation of $80,000 education cost vs. $80,000 saved for retirement, but $80,000 vs. whatever they’ve been spending their income on unwisely to this point. (Cars? vacations? gambling? eating out every night?)”</p>
<p>Maybe they are doing the best they can. Earlier you said the family with an income of 80k likely has 80k in savings? Says who?</p>
<p>We’re all reacting to what we brought to this discussion. I agree that the OP stated the premise in arguably the worst possible way. A lot of people reacted poorly to that - and understandably so. I am reacting to the drumbeat I see from financial advisers - on websites, on TV, and in person - that parents of college age children should prioritize their retirement savings over paying for their children’s college expenses. (A choice which maximizes the income of investment advisers, I’d note, since there are then more assets available to manage.) Some folks here are reacting against a perception that some kids are demanding that their parents send them to a “dream school” regardless of the cost or benefit.</p>
<p>Every permutation of family situations is conceivable, from the struggling blended family with 10 kids and major medical issues, to the only child grasshopper family which spends 110% of their income on vacations, expensive cars, dining out every night and household assistants. And an equally wide range of college options exist as well, both financially and in terms of “top” vs. “mediocre.” Which of those options you focus on is going to depend on what you bring to the discussion and which over the top post you’re reacting to.</p>
<p>My bottom line is this: I think most boomer parents are less willing to cut back on their personal priorities in favor of their children’s academic opportunities than I think is right. And I think they are encouraged to do that by people who tacitly condone that conduct by adopting the attitude of “Well, you don’t have enough money saved up so too bad for junior.”</p>
<p>Lookingforward, the average net worth exclusive of personal home for families in that income demographic is, IIRC, about $100,000. I would expect the wealth figure to skew upward for families that have parents old enough to have college age kids. I know lots of 20-somethings with income in that range but they generally have little in the way of savings or investments. I wouldn’t expect that to be true of people in their 40s and 50’s.</p>
<p>I couldn’t find that figure, Kluge. Maybe you can point me to it. What I did find is that the closer to retirement, the lower the $ averages set aside in retirement funds and the more likely a family is to say they will primarily rely on SS.</p>
<p>I don’t personally see enough Boomer parents taking the self-centered approach to add up to generalizations. What I do see- an worry about- are folks who overspend on college- whether it’s the wealthy, looking for a name brand for their not so able kids or the poor, making assumptions about their bright kid.</p>
Well, you can wreck your life in a Porsche when you’re learning to drive, and you really can wreck your life by overspending on college because you were some sheep who drank the koolaid about “prestige.”</p>