What's the Cutoff For Schools That Are Worth the Money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T25 + Tufts

Tufts has really shitty outcome

Worth one of the least.

- Boston College: Average Annual Cost $37k, Median Earnings $93k
- Northeastern: Average Annual Cost $30k, Median Earnings $80k
- Boston University: Average Annual Cost $30k, Median Earnings $76k
- Brandeis: Average Annual Cost $34k, Median Earnings $70k
- Tufts: Average Annual Cost $37k, Median Earnings $67k

The cost for Brandeis is way more than $34k. It's 61k just for the tuition, and $80K, all in including room and board.

https://www.brandeis.edu/admissions/affordability/tuition.html

My niece declined Brandeis for a large but good in state flagship with some merit. They would've had to taken out at least $80K in loans.

She is sooo glad she did. She has zero loans and making good money; about to buy her first place, and she's in her 20s.

She is seeing her friends who went to higher ranked schools struggling to pay loans.

The vast majority of expensive colleges aren't worth it.

We are doing the same. Running to the state school that gave merit. Even out of state, it is cheaper. And better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assuming UMC, at what point does a school stop being worth the money (say sticker price) over cheaper options? Is it just Harvard and MIT?

Let's say that we're talking about families that would have to take a lot of loans to pay the difference, and we're talking about wonderful, spiky, quirky, intellectual kids who have a real chance of getting into a school like MIT or Tufts, not super well-adjusted, well-rounded, moderately brilliant, athletic kids who seem likely to be state flagship royalty. And let's say the state flagship is the University of South Carolina, not a near-Ivy like UVa or William & Mary, or a school like UMD that clearly attracts many broke, high-stats kids. Let's assume that the kids really do get into the state flagship; they're not using a private school as a backup for UVa.

My feeling is that:

- Top 50 schools with fewer than about 6,000 freshmen might be worth it for students who are at a high risk of getting lost at a big school. (If you double the odds of the student d getting through school, the risk-adjusted cost of the smaller school is about the same as the cost of the big state school.)

- Top 20 schools and some schools that, technically, rank outside the Top 20 (example: Harvey Mudd, if a list leaves out Harvey Mudd) are worth it for the kinds of students who were ready for college when they were 12. In some ways, a student that different has what, if handled incorrectly, could be a serious disability. If parents would have stretched to send a child with hearing problems to a boarding school for students with hearing problems, they should be willing to stretch to send an ultra-high-stats child to Harvey Mudd.

- Top 20 schools and other schools known for producing future Ph.D.'s are worth it for very high-stats students who desperately want to be academic researchers.

- Top 20 schools and some lower-ranked schools with a lot of very rich students are worth it for students who want to go into investment banking or other fields where undergrad connections make a huge difference.

I don't think that taking out PLUS loans or facing severe reductions in living standards would be worth it to send a wonderful, functional, quirky kid who's bright in a fairly normal way to T10 school that costs about $10,000 per year more than a solid but unexciting state flagship, or to a school that ranks below the top 50 and costs any more than the state flagship.

If, say, Jane Doe has no idea what she wants to major in, but she could survive in a big school, and she could go to the University of South Carolina and find at least 50 intellectual peers in the freshman class, having the parents take out a lot of PLUS loans to send her to Vassar, wouldn't make a lot of sense.

If the choice was between MIT and the University of South Carolina, and Jane wanted to major in physics, maybe paying $10,000 more per year for MIT would be worth it. But, if coming up with more than $10,000 per year would cause severe hardship for the family, even MIT wouldn't be worth that extra money. Partly because, for most normal bright kids, it's never clear how well they're really going to do at a place like MIT. They might be better off as big fish, with enough money, at the University of South Carolina than as poor, stressed out serfs at MIT. If they go to MIT, blow a lot of money and flunk out, that's a catastrophe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T25 + Tufts

Tufts has really shitty outcome

Worth one of the least.

- Boston College: Average Annual Cost $37k, Median Earnings $93k
- Northeastern: Average Annual Cost $30k, Median Earnings $80k
- Boston University: Average Annual Cost $30k, Median Earnings $76k
- Brandeis: Average Annual Cost $34k, Median Earnings $70k
- Tufts: Average Annual Cost $37k, Median Earnings $67k

The cost for Brandeis is way more than $34k. It's 61k just for the tuition, and $80K, all in including room and board.

https://www.brandeis.edu/admissions/affordability/tuition.html

My niece declined Brandeis for a large but good in state flagship with some merit. They would've had to taken out at least $80K in loans.

She is sooo glad she did. She has zero loans and making good money; about to buy her first place, and she's in her 20s.

She is seeing her friends who went to higher ranked schools struggling to pay loans.

The vast majority of expensive colleges aren't worth it.

It’s easy to have that attitude when you have the means to pay $30-40k/year. It’s a lot tougher to turn down W&M or UVa for JMU or WVU due to costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is going to pursue a lucrative career in finance or tech, then paying up for prestige often makes sense. If not, then financially, it is hard to justify. Anyone pinching their own financial security (for example borrowing money you really don’t have) should think twice or three times about paying more than they have to for anything but elite degrees. Screwing up your retirement for Colby doesn’t make sense. That said, if you do have money, think of it as a luxury good, not just an investment. Like a vacation to Paris instead of Florida. In the scheme of luxury goods, I think a wonderful college experience is more valuable than a fancy car, for example. There are intangible benefits to the experience which could translate into financial benefits. For example, your English major daughter is more likely to find a future investment banker to marry at some schools versus others (for better or worse). But people who cannot afford luxury goods shouldn’t buy them.

I felt like so many of the posters in this thread live in such a bubble and are just so narrow minded about the reasons parents might choose to invest more than others to send their kids to college. I like this post, though. Makes perfect sense.

You are free to invest all you want, but don't complain when you want to retire and don't have enough saved. It should never come at the cost of retirement savings. "people who cannot afford luxury goods shouldn't buy them" is best way to put it

Some of us started 529s when our kids were born and have been saving for 18 years so we have the money.

Then you have the money and likely also have been saving for retirement. If you haven't been retirement saving, then you don't really have the money.

We have fully funded 529 because we planned and saved and and high enough income to do it comfortably, and can even afford medical school/grad school if/when our kids want it.

But if we did not, then our kids would be searching merit and saving some money. All of my kids got decent merit offers without even trying. Each one had multiple offers to attend a great private school for about $30-40K/year. And that was withOUT searching for merit. Could have easily gotten cost down to 20-30K

[Anonymous]

I think it depends on the child, your income, college savings and your retirement. Don't let this decision strap you or your child forever. You know your kid. If they will thrive anywhere, send them to a state flagship school. Some kids require more TLC, if you are in position to do that, it is not a bad way to spend money. Plenty of people blow six figures on dumb toys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming UMC, at what point does a school stop being worth the money (say sticker price) over cheaper options? Is it just Harvard and MIT?

Let's say that we're talking about families that would have to take a lot of loans to pay the difference, and we're talking about wonderful, spiky, quirky, intellectual kids who have a real chance of getting into a school like MIT or Tufts, not super well-adjusted, well-rounded, moderately brilliant, athletic kids who seem likely to be state flagship royalty. And let's say the state flagship is the University of South Carolina, not a near-Ivy like UVa or William & Mary, or a school like UMD that clearly attracts many broke, high-stats kids. Let's assume that the kids really do get into the state flagship; they're not using a private school as a backup for UVa.

My feeling is that:

- Top 50 schools with fewer than about 6,000 freshmen might be worth it for students who are at a high risk of getting lost at a big school. (If you double the odds of the student d getting through school, the risk-adjusted cost of the smaller school is about the same as the cost of the big state school.)

- Top 20 schools and some schools that, technically, rank outside the Top 20 (example: Harvey Mudd, if a list leaves out Harvey Mudd) are worth it for the kinds of students who were ready for college when they were 12. In some ways, a student that different has what, if handled incorrectly, could be a serious disability. If parents would have stretched to send a child with hearing problems to a boarding school for students with hearing problems, they should be willing to stretch to send an ultra-high-stats child to Harvey Mudd.

- Top 20 schools and other schools known for producing future Ph.D.'s are worth it for very high-stats students who desperately want to be academic researchers.

- Top 20 schools and some lower-ranked schools with a lot of very rich students are worth it for students who want to go into investment banking or other fields where undergrad connections make a huge difference.

I don't think that taking out PLUS loans or facing severe reductions in living standards would be worth it to send a wonderful, functional, quirky kid who's bright in a fairly normal way to T10 school that costs about $10,000 per year more than a solid but unexciting state flagship, or to a school that ranks below the top 50 and costs any more than the state flagship.

If, say, Jane Doe has no idea what she wants to major in, but she could survive in a big school, and she could go to the University of South Carolina and find at least 50 intellectual peers in the freshman class, having the parents take out a lot of PLUS loans to send her to Vassar, wouldn't make a lot of sense.

If the choice was between MIT and the University of South Carolina, and Jane wanted to major in physics, maybe paying $10,000 more per year for MIT would be worth it. But, if coming up with more than $10,000 per year would cause severe hardship for the family, even MIT wouldn't be worth that extra money. Partly because, for most normal bright kids, it's never clear how well they're really going to do at a place like MIT. They might be better off as big fish, with enough money, at the University of South Carolina than as poor, stressed out serfs at MIT. If they go to MIT, blow a lot of money and flunk out, that's a catastrophe.

whoever wrote this is wonderful and spiky

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid is going to pursue a lucrative career in finance or tech, then paying up for prestige often makes sense. If not, then financially, it is hard to justify. Anyone pinching their own financial security (for example borrowing money you really don’t have) should think twice or three times about paying more than they have to for anything but elite degrees. Screwing up your retirement for Colby doesn’t make sense. That said, if you do have money, think of it as a luxury good, not just an investment. Like a vacation to Paris instead of Florida. In the scheme of luxury goods, I think a wonderful college experience is more valuable than a fancy car, for example. There are intangible benefits to the experience which could translate into financial benefits. For example, your English major daughter is more likely to find a future investment banker to marry at some schools versus others (for better or worse). But people who cannot afford luxury goods shouldn’t buy them.

I felt like so many of the posters in this thread live in such a bubble and are just so narrow minded about the reasons parents might choose to invest more than others to send their kids to college. I like this post, though. Makes perfect sense.

You are free to invest all you want, but don't complain when you want to retire and don't have enough saved. It should never come at the cost of retirement savings. "people who cannot afford luxury goods shouldn't buy them" is best way to put it

Some of us started 529s when our kids were born and have been saving for 18 years so we have the money.

Then you have the money and likely also have been saving for retirement. If you haven't been retirement saving, then you don't really have the money.

We have fully funded 529 because we planned and saved and and high enough income to do it comfortably, and can even afford medical school/grad school if/when our kids want it.

But if we did not, then our kids would be searching merit and saving some money. All of my kids got decent merit offers without even trying. Each one had multiple offers to attend a great private school for about $30-40K/year. And that was withOUT searching for merit. Could have easily gotten cost down to 20-30K

I agree (I’m the one you quoted) but folks here are acting like it is never worth it. I think you get a great education at many of these small LACs. For us, we have the money saved and we value the education as an end in and of itself, so for us, it’s worth it. We value education so we saved from the very beginning (and yes, funded retirement as well).

[Anonymous]

Majors are likely more important than the school if you are just focused on ROI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Majors are likely more important than the school if you are just focused on ROI.

Nobody decide a school with just one factor.
You consider many factors together.
ROI is one of the most import factors unless you are rich trust fund kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Majors are likely more important than the school if you are just focused on ROI.

and of course majors are important.

[Anonymous]

Most of the ivy leagues (maybe not Cornell), Stanford, Duke, MIT, some others are probably worth it without knowing your entire scenario

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Majors are likely more important than the school if you are just focused on ROI.

Nobody decide a school with just one factor.
You consider many factors together.
ROI is one of the most import factors unless you are rich trust fund kid.

But ROI in short-term will likely be highly determined by the mix of majors at the school. If School A has a high percentage of engineers, for instance, compared to School B, ROI at School A may appear higher. But if you compare major to major, School B may be just as good or better.