If you could send your child to any out of state school (if money were no object)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming you're referring to state schools (otherwise, obviously, there's no difference in tuition based on where you live). I'd chose Michigan, hands down.

They said "any out of state school"

You could also assume that includes privates, Canadian and overseas universities, if you weren't so narrow minded.

wow. that's unnecessarily aggressive. i wasn't aware there was a difference in tuition for in-state or out-of-state students for private schools. i admittedly didn't think of Canadian or overseas universities (since those are, more specifically, out of country).

No need to jump down my throat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming you're referring to state schools (otherwise, obviously, there's no difference in tuition based on where you live). I'd chose Michigan, hands down.

They said "any out of state school"

You could also assume that includes privates, Canadian and overseas universities, if you weren't so narrow minded.

Such a weird inquiry though. Why describe a school as out of state if you don't mean public university since that has a price component. It can't be distance related - I live in Bethesda so Georgetown (OOS) is 10 mins away while Hopkins (in state) is an hour. Why not say any school, which could certainly include universities outside the US.

Out of state=outside the state you reside in.

[Anonymous]

Re why describe school as OOS if you don't mean public OOS (where there's generally a price differential based on residency)? For some families (not necessarily OP's), the question is what would it take to induce you to spend more than in-state tuition for public school in your home state and to send your kid to go to college farther from home?

My parents were like that -- I grew up in California and the standard from my parents' POV was "is the school really worth $X more per year than Berkeley?" (Aka "beat Berkeley."). That was a high bar and only a few schools cleared it -- and those were private schools.

Abstractly, I still think that's a reasonable approach. In practice, though, we live in DC, so "beat UDC" was a meaningless standard.

[Anonymous]

I'd probably pick a UC school.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Berkeley or UC is winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re why describe school as OOS if you don't mean public OOS (where there's generally a price differential based on residency)? For some families (not necessarily OP's), the question is what would it take to induce you to spend more than in-state tuition for public school in your home state and to send your kid to go to college farther from home?

My parents were like that -- I grew up in California and the standard from my parents' POV was "is the school really worth $X more per year than Berkeley?" (Aka "beat Berkeley."). That was a high bar and only a few schools cleared it -- and those were private schools.

Abstractly, I still think that's a reasonable approach. In practice, though, we live in DC, so "beat UDC" was a meaningless standard.

Sure, but Hopkins is in (my) state and is no bargain. Perhaps if the OP framed it as your in state public option vs all other options it would have made sense. But it wasn't clear that was really the question, hence the focus on OOS public universities.

[Anonymous]

Is UC Berkeley really that great for undergraduate education? I know they are good in general, but I think it's the grad school programs that are the draw. The best undergraduate education is usually found at top SLACs and ivies.

[Anonymous]

Depends on the kid and the major.

I think that the top SLACs/"Ivies" = best college education is a UMC myth.

[Anonymous]

I am sick and tired of SLAC and Ivys propaganda. Only HYP are great others are not so great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sick and tired of SLAC and Ivys propaganda. Only HYP are great others are not so great.

In that case no other college is great. It's ridiculous to think an underfunded, graduate school focused public university could hold a candle to places like U'Chicago or Williams. It's not just about small classes, it's about the amount of funding and opportunity placed on the undergrads. The outcomes- see the Forbes ranking- speak for themselves. The top schools are all elite private schools.

[Anonymous]

I'd send my kid to Berkeley over Williams any day. DC preferred UChicago to Berkeley. Resources/opportunities are pretty amazing.

[Anonymous]

Berkeley and Chicago faculty are peers. Williams faculty isn't even close. Range of course offerings isn't comparable either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley and Chicago faculty are peers. Williams faculty isn't even close. Range of course offerings isn't comparable either.

Sure, but those elite Berkeley faculty are definitely not interacting with the undergrads consistently.

The teaching is far worse at Berkeley- there are surveys showing the difference. Who cares about how impressive the faculty are for undergrad? Williams is a national leader at virtually every post-graduate destination, and far better than Berkeley: https://hubpages.com/education/Wall-Street-Journal-College-Rankings-The-Full-List-and-Rating-Criteria

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVM as it would be a perfect fit for DD

It truly is in a beautiful spot. I used to be on the faculty (visiting prof). They do well by their undergrads there.

[Anonymous]

DS wants to move to CA when he grows up and work in media. So, for him, I'd say UCLA or USC.