Jeff Selingo on people skipping "target schools"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s surprising or newsworthy or forward-thinking to suggest that $200k families don’t/wont/can’t pay $400k for Villanova or Tulane?

Yes, because just a year ago those schools didn’t cost entirely that much. Tipping point reached.

Yes. Also test-optional makes these schools much less attractive. It’s one thing to stretch, financially, when telling yourself that your kid will be among his intellectual peers. Iron sharpens iron and all that. But if only 15% of students are reporting scores … what are you paying for, again? You can get a mix of students, including some very strong ones, at the flagship.

This. 100%.

https://www.tiktok.com/@supertutortv/video/7327004377451957547?lang=en

A 1300 is still ~90th percentile. There's a lot of such students at the "non Ivy plus" schools to begin with.

TO doesn't mean "dumb."

A goofy lady on tik Tik Tok isn't very persuasive.

+100
I've seen some of her videos and used to think she might know something but this one tells me she knows nothing like the rest of us and just speculating. There's literally no difference in student caliber going from an approximately 90th percentile score to the 95th percentile score she's advocating to send, the colleges themselves would tell you that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1990s, my father told me you get into an Ivy or you go to state u. Motivated me to get into an Ivy, which I did. Of course, that was when you really just needed excellent grades and high scores.

It sort of doesn't make sense to pay Cadillac prices for a Chevy when you've got a perfectly good Toyota at half the cost.

Some of us do not consider schools ranked 30-50 “Chevy” caliber. We view them as top notch and worth the cost to us, especially if it’s the right fit for our kid

I am PP and actually agree with you and we are in fact paying full price for the Chevy right now and very happy with the Chevy (which in some ways has advantages over the Caddie- mainly with respect to not being just another small fish in a big pond). But it really comes down to personal resources. Paying up for the Chevy is a bit of a luxury- it may not be sensible for everyone to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree - this is our plan.

I have been saying for a few years that I think grad school is the new college, so it makes sense to go to a state college and save some $ for grad school.

I honestly don't understand this logic at all. So many grad schools / grad degrees produce kids with poor outcomes. So many jobs/industries don't care about a grad degree whatsoever.

This is another skewed DMV perspective that worked for you, but you can't rely on it holding going forward.

I don't interact with too many people without post-grad degrees. Came to DC from NYC, so I guess it’s the crowd. My oldest is interested in engineering - and my dad and his dad were engineers and both had master’s. My dad’s company paid for him to get it (probably my grandfather’s did too). But I don’t think either of them thought it was worthless.

You are right...but unclear if they would have thought it worth paying for that master with their own nickel. I get anyone pursuing a grad degree for free. In which case...nobody had to save anything for their Masters.

Most CEOs have nothing more than a Bachelor's (60%) and of course, there are plenty of folks starting and running tech companies that either dropped out of college or never went to college at all.

I just don't understand the rationale that graduate school is the new college.

I don’t think college differentiates as much as it used to - because so many go now - I guess is my rationale. But I am aware of Mark Zuckerberg.

not just Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs & Gates. There's more of them than you'd think.
Dorsey-Twitter, Ellison-oracle, Park-Fitbit, Mullenweg-Wordpress, Collison-Stripe, Parker-napster, Koum-whatsapp, Ferdowski-Dropbox, Kalanick-Uber, Pittman-iHeartMedia, Karp-Tumblr, Dell-Dell, you get the picture. Could name another 20 off-hand.

You forgot Altman-Open AI...considering Open AI is all the rage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Truthfully, as a slightly higher than donut hole range family---it's hard to justify $85k-90k year at even the top 10 schools. It's gotten way out of hand!

If you haven’t saved for it, yes. But if you’ve been saving you would have 300k+ in a 529 and then you realize, this is exactly why we saved and let your kid attend if it’s their first choice

If all you do is save, well, you're not going to have $300,000 per kid. Save and also make risky investments that pay off, maybe.

This is your problem. I mean, just do some simple math...assume you save $10k per year starting when your kid is born. Take that $10k * 1.08^18 power = $40k after 18 years. Next year, add another $10k and take 10k*1.08^17 = $37,000. Keep saving $10k and run the formula and subtract a year. 8% is the historical rate of return of the S&P index...not exactly super risky there.

That $180k = $404k after 18 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Markets will adjust and Ivy-plus will begin offering more made or reducing cost of attendance in other ways.

+1 This!

At some point the 'bubble' will burst and even the Ivy-plus schools will have to adjust as there won't be enough people with the requisite stats and also wealthy enough to pay for 5%+ expense increases per year. Either they'd have to significantly lower standards to let in others who can afford it or get creative with pricing and aid (eg. do what Purdue U. is doing) in order to maintain standards. Bubbles eventually burst no matter how long it takes, circa 2008 Real Estate.

Ivy+ are need blind and meet 100% need. So don't hold your breath for anything to change.

You will have to be poor or rich to attend these schools.

They have made it impossible for the vast majority of middle income families that will get zero aid.

That is what is starting to happen at these top need-blind schools that cost an arm and leg. You have the poor Pell grant kids or kids that get massive need-based aid (parents make under $75-110k) and then you get the families that are making $500k+ (or $300-400 in low cost areas--not the DMV).

So the campuses are going to be pretty much like its getting in America...the very rich and the very poor.

It's not good for anyone. The mid gets screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Markets will adjust and Ivy-plus will begin offering more made or reducing cost of attendance in other ways.

+1 This!

At some point the 'bubble' will burst and even the Ivy-plus schools will have to adjust as there won't be enough people with the requisite stats and also wealthy enough to pay for 5%+ expense increases per year. Either they'd have to significantly lower standards to let in others who can afford it or get creative with pricing and aid (eg. do what Purdue U. is doing) in order to maintain standards. Bubbles eventually burst no matter how long it takes, circa 2008 Real Estate.

Ivy+ are need blind and meet 100% need. So don't hold your breath for anything to change.

You will have to be poor or rich to attend these schools.

They have made it impossible for the vast majority of middle income families that will get zero aid.

That is what is starting to happen at these top need-blind schools that cost an arm and leg. You have the poor Pell grant kids or kids that get massive need-based aid (parents make under $75-110k) and then you get the families that are making $500k+ (or $300-400 in low cost areas--not the DMV).

So the campuses are going to be pretty much like its getting in America...the very rich and the very poor.

It's not good for anyone. The mid gets screwed.

$150k-220k are effed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Truthfully, as a slightly higher than donut hole range family---it's hard to justify $85k-90k year at even the top 10 schools. It's gotten way out of hand!

If you haven’t saved for it, yes. But if you’ve been saving you would have 300k+ in a 529 and then you realize, this is exactly why we saved and let your kid attend if it’s their first choice

If all you do is save, well, you're not going to have $300,000 per kid. Save and also make risky investments that pay off, maybe.

Here's what we did. Started saving shortly after first kid was born. For several years, 75-80% of any bonuses and salary increases went towards the 529, in addition to the monthly contributions we could afford. Between 0 and 5 our salaries went up $30K, so we just funneled most the increase towards 529 and most of remainder to retirement. Between 5 and 10 (for first kid) had another $40K in salary increase with new job. Since we were living just fine before we chose to direct majority towards college until we were on track and then could cut back. Did same with next kid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Markets will adjust and Ivy-plus will begin offering more made or reducing cost of attendance in other ways.

+1 This!

At some point the 'bubble' will burst and even the Ivy-plus schools will have to adjust as there won't be enough people with the requisite stats and also wealthy enough to pay for 5%+ expense increases per year. Either they'd have to significantly lower standards to let in others who can afford it or get creative with pricing and aid (eg. do what Purdue U. is doing) in order to maintain standards. Bubbles eventually burst no matter how long it takes, circa 2008 Real Estate.

Ivy+ are need blind and meet 100% need. So don't hold your breath for anything to change.

You will have to be poor or rich to attend these schools.

They have made it impossible for the vast majority of middle income families that will get zero aid.

That is what is starting to happen at these top need-blind schools that cost an arm and leg. You have the poor Pell grant kids or kids that get massive need-based aid (parents make under $75-110k) and then you get the families that are making $500k+ (or $300-400 in low cost areas--not the DMV).

So the campuses are going to be pretty much like its getting in America...the very rich and the very poor.

It's not good for anyone. The mid gets screwed.

$150k-220k are effed.

So they go to Denison with merit aid instead of Colby. Big deal. And perhaps eventually Denison becomes better than Colby because they are able to attract the high performing children of effed donut hole families whereas Colby prices them out and is left to choose from only super rich and super poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Markets will adjust and Ivy-plus will begin offering more made or reducing cost of attendance in other ways.

+1 This!

At some point the 'bubble' will burst and even the Ivy-plus schools will have to adjust as there won't be enough people with the requisite stats and also wealthy enough to pay for 5%+ expense increases per year. Either they'd have to significantly lower standards to let in others who can afford it or get creative with pricing and aid (eg. do what Purdue U. is doing) in order to maintain standards. Bubbles eventually burst no matter how long it takes, circa 2008 Real Estate.

Ivy+ are need blind and meet 100% need. So don't hold your breath for anything to change.

You will have to be poor or rich to attend these schools.

They have made it impossible for the vast majority of middle income families that will get zero aid.

That is what is starting to happen at these top need-blind schools that cost an arm and leg. You have the poor Pell grant kids or kids that get massive need-based aid (parents make under $75-110k) and then you get the families that are making $500k+ (or $300-400 in low cost areas--not the DMV).

So the campuses are going to be pretty much like its getting in America...the very rich and the very poor.

It's not good for anyone. The mid gets screwed.

The very top need-blind schools give aid as high as $300k...I think it is 100% up to $150k and then a sliding scale. Folks keep arbitrarily lowering the bottom of the scale, or you are actually referring to schools outside the Top 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Truthfully, as a slightly higher than donut hole range family---it's hard to justify $85k-90k year at even the top 10 schools. It's gotten way out of hand!

If you haven’t saved for it, yes. But if you’ve been saving you would have 300k+ in a 529 and then you realize, this is exactly why we saved and let your kid attend if it’s their first choice

It’s great to have the money so you have the choice. But you still have to ask, regarding a $350k private school vs a state flagship, “is this the best use of the money?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Truthfully, as a slightly higher than donut hole range family---it's hard to justify $85k-90k year at even the top 10 schools. It's gotten way out of hand!

If you haven’t saved for it, yes. But if you’ve been saving you would have 300k+ in a 529 and then you realize, this is exactly why we saved and let your kid attend if it’s their first choice

It’s great to have the money so you have the choice. But you still have to ask, regarding a $350k private school vs a state flagship, “is this the best use of the money?”

and as we've been telling you: a resounding yes for us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think fit is a weird thing. Some kids take a 90 minute tour and it feels right. some kids don't like the color of the uniforms. this is not really logical.

A lot of kids can be happy in a lot of schools. Plenty of lower ranked schools have a lot more opportunities for intellectually curious kids (good luck writing for the Princeton paper if you were editor of your HS paper). If you have a kid who wants to try new things instead of doing more of the same thing they've done before, look widely is my advice.

And if you had a kid who liked HS, they'll love college. If you had a kid who hated HS, I think it can be trickier.

My kid can be happy at a lot of schools. But for one kid, we toured 10+ colleges in a week the summer before senior year. They were targeted schools that they most likely would apply to. A few my kid said, nope, no way I don't like it and hate the town, not spending 4 years there. others were "yeah I like it, I can see myself there. And I like it for X Y and Z---where X Y And Z are about academics and the opportunities for research and academic pursuits, along with a few ECs. " There were two schools my kid just loved---one was a T10 (my alma mater) and yes, it would be an excellent fit for my kid. It's a great school, beautiful campus, smaller/mid size campus/size my kid wanted, and offers all the majors my kid is interested in and has a lot of kids who are multi-dimensional as well (my kid is a CS/Engineer and loves to dance, might minor in it). THe next school is one that is the right size, encourages kids to be multi-dimensional thru their "core curriculum" that really lets you focus on two areas outside of your major (you need courses in STEM, Humanities, and Social sciences---your major covers one and the CC covers the other 2). My kid really liked the Core curriculum and the ability to focus on things they love, rather than taking 1 history, 1 English, 1 Philosophy, etc. They also really really like the tour guides we had and could really see themselves on campus. As a "non-geeky" engineering major (my kid didn't do robotics or the like---they spend 20hr+/week dancing in MS/HS), they could see that as well in the visitors as well as the students/tour guide. We did two visits---both ironically my kid got a tour guide that was in their exact engineering major (hint it's not ME or BME) and that Gabe them a chance to see what students in their major are really like. We also got a private tour (in April) from an engineering major (senior) who was gladly willing to show us engineering part of campus (there were no official tours that day). That kid was so like my own kid, in drive, focus, desire, leadership, and when we discussed ECs and what clubs/activites kids do and how it fits with the CC, turns out the personal tour guide is also a dancer and set my kid up with lists of contacts for all the best clubs/activites. (I personally had no clue the kid was a dancer, but I couldn't have asked for a better tour guide). So despite this campus being in a "not a place my kid ever thought they would spend 4 years", my kid just lit up with each visit---for them it really is the best fit of all their choices. And now that they've been on campus for a few years, I have to say they made the right choice.

sure they could have gone elsewhere and would turn out okay/fine. But I honestly believe kids excel when they are happiest and in the best environment for them. For my kid this school was their top choice (probably even better than the T10 who rejected them, so thanks to them for edging them along to make the best choice )

But we encouraged our kids to make the choices for college about Fit and academics. Not---I like the mascot and school colors better, or the dorms are so nice and fancy---make it about meaningful, substantial choices.

But yes, This town sucks and it's in the middle of nowhere, I won't live here is a viable reason. (that was RPI---and I agree Troy NY is not a fun place and I wouldn't want to spend 4 years there)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the 1990s, my father told me you get into an Ivy or you go to state u. Motivated me to get into an Ivy, which I did. Of course, that was when you really just needed excellent grades and high scores.

It sort of doesn't make sense to pay Cadillac prices for a Chevy when you've got a perfectly good Toyota at half the cost.

Some of us do not consider schools ranked 30-50 “Chevy” caliber. We view them as top notch and worth the cost to us, especially if it’s the right fit for our kid

Ok, they’re not charging Cadillac prices for a Chevy, they’re charging Maserati prices for a Lexus. You got a great car… but you paid too much for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Truthfully, as a slightly higher than donut hole range family---it's hard to justify $85k-90k year at even the top 10 schools. It's gotten way out of hand!

If you haven’t saved for it, yes. But if you’ve been saving you would have 300k+ in a 529 and then you realize, this is exactly why we saved and let your kid attend if it’s their first choice

If all you do is save, well, you're not going to have $300,000 per kid. Save and also make risky investments that pay off, maybe.

This is your problem. I mean, just do some simple math...assume you save $10k per year starting when your kid is born. Take that $10k * 1.08^18 power = $40k after 18 years. Next year, add another $10k and take 10k*1.08^17 = $37,000. Keep saving $10k and run the formula and subtract a year. 8% is the historical rate of return of the S&P index...not exactly super risky there.

That $180k = $404k after 18 years.

+1 It is possible to do. Now imagine just directly 50% of all bonuses/pay increases towards college savings. You can do that without any impact on lifestyle

[Anonymous]

taking 18 years of savings (per kid!) and spending it all on 4 years of undergrad is crazy unless you have many millions in the bank OR if you had your kids at 20. you just don't have another 18 years to save to help these same kids in the years after they graduate from college.

80% of bonuses over two decades!! oy

just to have these same kids turn around and save 80% of THEIR bonuses for two decades. oy!

this is how you take generational wealth and hand it over to Haverford. oy!