100k+ COA is here

[Anonymous]

Don’t be outraged. Just don’t go if merit isn’t offered to bring the cost down. Why the handwringing? There are other options.

[Anonymous]

I heard on YCBK that the average discount is now like 53%. So college has become one of those markets where most people don’t pay the sticker price and those that do are massively subsidizing the rest.

My sister is a donut hole family and her kids went to ivies for basically free because they hit under their newer income caps. We’re paying full pay at one of the above listed institutions — I’m just taking it off the top of what I otherwise would donate to charity because I understand that them overcharging me is allowing them to provide full rides to people with lower incomes.

It’s a progressive tax system but the problem is that it’s not very transparent because the merit aid stuff is all over the map. YCBK had an interview the other day with the head of admissions for Connecticut college and it makes it sound like these mid tier colleges themselves don’t have a very rationale approach to the merit aid — they want good yield stats and if they think they are at risk of losing out to a peer institution they will throw money at the kid. But they don’t know how much the peer is offering so they don’t know how much to offer as an incentive.

I feel really bad for all the truly middle class kids especially the ones whose parents don’t understand the system. I was that kid decades ago and an admin officer from Pomona kindly took the time to explain financial aid to my parents — otherwise they would not have allowed me to apply to private schools with this big ticket prices. Back then, I think the financial aid did a better job of covering truly middle class kids — most of my friends at school had financial aid. Everyone knew who did because we all had to stand in a line on first day of school to pick up our check to then bring to the registrar. Now it seems like there are three categories; 1) ivies committed to covering family who make under X amount; 2) everyone else who really only cover the neediest; 3) the Wild West of merit aid at the mid range schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would anyone pay that much for these colleges?

Because that’s what it costs??? lol what kind of question is this.

Do you seriously doubt there are people with more money than you in the world?

? that's not the question.

Don't care how much money you have. None of those colleges are worth $100K/yr. But, I guess rich people can be foolish, too. Look at Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would anyone pay that much for these colleges?

Because that’s what it costs??? lol what kind of question is this.

Do you seriously doubt there are people with more money than you in the world?

? that's not the question.

Don't care how much money you have. None of those colleges are worth $100K/yr. But, I guess rich people can be foolish, too. Look at Trump.

DP. Worth is in the eye of the beholder. My kids are going to solid state schools and there is zero chance I would pay this much. It’s not worth it to me. It could be worth it to someone else. They can figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

Princeton is much better than Amherst and Williams for undergraduate education. Same with Yale. And Brown. And frankly, Columbia.

Princeton can play, not better but can play so I will give you that. A close friends kid is at Brown now while their oldest went to a top SLAC. They are pretty open that the SLAC was a better education. Frankly (I can fit that in too) I cannot imagine Columbia being better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

Link?

Google is your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

Princeton is much better than Amherst and Williams for undergraduate education. Same with Yale. And Brown. And frankly, Columbia.

Princeton can play, not better but can play so I will give you that. A close friends kid is at Brown now while their oldest went to a top SLAC. They are pretty open that the SLAC was a better education. Frankly (I can fit that in too) I cannot imagine Columbia being better.

I don’t see your point. Top ivies have tiny courses, rigorous academics, and real research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All colleges should be tuition free for domestic students. I cannot imagine how schools with massive endowments still have the nerve to charge more than $100K a year.

People do not understand how endowments work. They are mostly restricted to purpose and cannot be used as people wish them used.

This comment doesn’t understand how endowments work. Mostly restricted doesn’t mean entirely restricted, and even the restricted parts free up other funds to be used for other purposes. In fact, the endowments are often what makes possible the large tuition discounts offered to a huge chunk of students.

That doesn’t remotely mean that “free” is possible at the vast majority of schools. Learn basic math before you chime in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Outrageous! SMU, GWU!!:
1. Harvey Mudd College $104,512
2. Duke University $103,975
3. University of Chicago $103,821
4. University of Southern California $103,162
5. Barnard College $103,000
6. Washington University $102,260
7. Smith College $102,226
8. Fordham University $102,188
9. Claremont McKenna $101,990
10. Vassar College $101,051
11. Wesleyan University $101,030
12. New York University $100,998
13. Georgetown University $100,864
14. Bates College $100,437
15. Colgate University $100,224
16. Haverford College $100,026
17. Brown University $99,994
18. Northwestern University $99,375
19. Pepperdine University $99,258
20. Hamilton College $98,850
21. Amherst College $98,840
22. Wellesley College $98,186
23. Rice University $97,309
24. Southern Methodist University$96,388
25. Columbia University (2025-26) $95,946
26. George Washington University$95,155

Bolded are two of the five worth the price with the other three being Duke, Harvey Mudd and Rice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All colleges should be tuition free for domestic students. I cannot imagine how schools with massive endowments still have the nerve to charge more than $100K a year.

People do not understand how endowments work. They are mostly restricted to purpose and cannot be used as people wish them used.

This comment doesn’t understand how endowments work. Mostly restricted doesn’t mean entirely restricted, and even the restricted parts free up other funds to be used for other purposes. In fact, the endowments are often what makes possible the large tuition discounts offered to a huge chunk of students.

That doesn’t remotely mean that “free” is possible at the vast majority of schools. Learn basic math before you chime in.

I wasn’t making that point. I was just pointing out that PP doesn’t understand how endowments work. Learn basic reading skills before chiming back in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

Princeton is much better than Amherst and Williams for undergraduate education. Same with Yale. And Brown. And frankly, Columbia.

Princeton can play, not better but can play so I will give you that. A close friends kid is at Brown now while their oldest went to a top SLAC. They are pretty open that the SLAC was a better education. Frankly (I can fit that in too) I cannot imagine Columbia being better.

I don’t see your point. Top ivies have tiny courses, rigorous academics, and real research.

I've been in both places as someone who started out at a premier LAC and transferred to an Ivy. The Ivy had more resources and a bigger and more impressive student body, but the LAC had better teachers and classroom experience. The Ivy wasn't bad, certainly, and had some great professors. But the small classes at the LACs are just enough of a different experience that I still remember it fondly despite transferring. This was almost 30 years ago but not surprised if it's still the same case today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

At the top SLACs, you’re paying for the best professors in the country and the alumni network. It’s not about the cost of living in the town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All colleges should be tuition free for domestic students. I cannot imagine how schools with massive endowments still have the nerve to charge more than $100K a year.

People do not understand how endowments work. They are mostly restricted to purpose and cannot be used as people wish them used.

This comment doesn’t understand how endowments work. Mostly restricted doesn’t mean entirely restricted, and even the restricted parts free up other funds to be used for other purposes. In fact, the endowments are often what makes possible the large tuition discounts offered to a huge chunk of students.

That doesn’t remotely mean that “free” is possible at the vast majority of schools. Learn basic math before you chime in.

I wasn’t making that point. I was just pointing out that PP doesn’t understand how endowments work. Learn basic reading skills before chiming back in.

I was the PP and I understand exactly how endowments work. You might want to understand the section of the thread before you chime in. You are looking like a fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

Princeton is much better than Amherst and Williams for undergraduate education. Same with Yale. And Brown. And frankly, Columbia.

Princeton can play, not better but can play so I will give you that. A close friends kid is at Brown now while their oldest went to a top SLAC. They are pretty open that the SLAC was a better education. Frankly (I can fit that in too) I cannot imagine Columbia being better.

I don’t see your point. Top ivies have tiny courses, rigorous academics, and real research.

I've been in both places as someone who started out at a premier LAC and transferred to an Ivy. The Ivy had more resources and a bigger and more impressive student body, but the LAC had better teachers and classroom experience. The Ivy wasn't bad, certainly, and had some great professors. But the small classes at the LACs are just enough of a different experience that I still remember it fondly despite transferring. This was almost 30 years ago but not surprised if it's still the same case today.

I've taught at both a SLAC and a T10 university (so, not Ivy, but ranked higher than several Ivies). I would say that overall, the faculty are slightly better at the T10, but students get more attention from and interaction with the faculty at the SLAC. The gap in the quality of faculty is more pronounced in the lab sciences than in the humanities or math. Obviously, there are also more serious research lab opportunities at the T10. OTOH, all the faculty at the SLAC are good teachers. Some of the faculty at the T10 are excellent researchers but mediocre teachers.

As a faculty member, I am happier at the T10, but will strongly encourage my kids to go to a SLAC unless they have a specific interest in the lab sciences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, paying $100K for Smith, Vassar, Bates or Colgate is insanity.

And Colgate, Bates and Vassar offer ZERO merit aid.

You are paying for the reputation and the quality of education. IYKYK.