Anonymous wrote:Isn't the only number that really matters the one your family pays? The true cost of Amherst varies by family. If someone wants to go full pay and pay that amount, who cares? All I care is that the aid package my student receives (if admitted) is one I/we are OK with.

The sticker prices only matter to the few who will not qualify for aid. And with over 1000 four-year colleges to choose from, this one hardly matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.“

The STEM fanatics are nowhere near as obnoxious as Mr. Wall Street, but they are inching in that direction. Do they not have the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” in the DMV?

If you love Amherst you probably didn’t also apply to CalTech or Wharton. They know what they are getting there, & are smart enough to know it’s not a vocational degree. So everybody can just stop with the attempts to shame the OP for not sending her kid to school to learn a trade. They learn how to think deeply, read between the lines, & write precisely at places like Amherst & Williams—probably better than at any other schools in the country, including Ivies. And those kinds of skills can be applied almost anywhere, as opposed to the sliver of specialized expertise some people here prefer.

You can gain those skills but also gain ones that lead to direct employment also, such as a top STEM education. They are not mutually exclusive.

My workplace is filled with people who have top STEM degrees (doctors and engineers and pharmacists etc). For the most part they do not have non-STEM skills (thinking, writing, etc).

How the hell would you know? Do you have your doctor or pharmacist write you a 10 page research paper or something?

All of those “STEM degrees” included humanities requirements anyway.

DP. I’m at a Fed agency where you have to have a hard science degree and 90% is writing and literature search- reading. We read and peer review constantly. We see each other’s work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.“

The STEM fanatics are nowhere near as obnoxious as Mr. Wall Street, but they are inching in that direction. Do they not have the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” in the DMV?

If you love Amherst you probably didn’t also apply to CalTech or Wharton. They know what they are getting there, & are smart enough to know it’s not a vocational degree. So everybody can just stop with the attempts to shame the OP for not sending her kid to school to learn a trade. They learn how to think deeply, read between the lines, & write precisely at places like Amherst & Williams—probably better than at any other schools in the country, including Ivies. And those kinds of skills can be applied almost anywhere, as opposed to the sliver of specialized expertise some people here prefer.

You can gain those skills but also gain ones that lead to direct employment also, such as a top STEM education. They are not mutually exclusive.

My workplace is filled with people who have top STEM degrees (doctors and engineers and pharmacists etc). For the most part they do not have non-STEM skills (thinking, writing, etc).

How the hell would you know? Do you have your doctor or pharmacist write you a 10 page research paper or something?

All of those “STEM degrees” included humanities requirements anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it justify costing a full $10K more than peer institutions like Williams, Bowdoin, Swarthmore?

That’s not the cost differential.

Yes, it is. All three are ~82K.

Sigh. Once again: tuition and room and board costs vs. tuition and room and board costs and personal expenses and travel etc. Apples and oranges.

Difference is maybe 2 grand at most. Maybe Amherst should not put these other expenses on their website — Williams does not, though they are obviously budgeted for financial aid — to avoid this confusion. But at a certain point, if this thread wants to willfully stay confused, have at it.

Personal expenses and travel are not budgeted for mainstream financial aid. Maybe they are for special "dirt poor" programs.

Amherst has always budgeted travel for financial aid as well as all food and board. It’s one reason why their financial aid packages are better than some others. I’m also a little confused by the stat that 50% are in the top 10% of income. If that’s right that means Amherst is giving financial aid to many students in the top 10% of income which would suggest the whole middle class is getting financial aid (since 65% of class gets financial aid).

Always may be a stretch. I think this is a more recent phenomenon.

I graduated 25 years ago, and my financial aid covered two trips home a year, books, and personal expenses. There was also a check for $300 in my campus mailbox when I first opened it to cover expenses for outfitting my dorm room and getting winter gear. Amherst definitely did right by me and my family. They also transferred my financial aid when I wanted to do two different study abroad programs, one of which led to my career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it justify costing a full $10K more than peer institutions like Williams, Bowdoin, Swarthmore?

That’s not the cost differential.

Yes, it is. All three are ~82K.

Sigh. Once again: tuition and room and board costs vs. tuition and room and board costs and personal expenses and travel etc. Apples and oranges.

Difference is maybe 2 grand at most. Maybe Amherst should not put these other expenses on their website — Williams does not, though they are obviously budgeted for financial aid — to avoid this confusion. But at a certain point, if this thread wants to willfully stay confused, have at it.

Personal expenses and travel are not budgeted for mainstream financial aid. Maybe they are for special "dirt poor" programs.

Amherst has always budgeted travel for financial aid as well as all food and board. It’s one reason why their financial aid packages are better than some others. I’m also a little confused by the stat that 50% are in the top 10% of income. If that’s right that means Amherst is giving financial aid to many students in the top 10% of income which would suggest the whole middle class is getting financial aid (since 65% of class gets financial aid).

Always may be a stretch. I think this is a more recent phenomenon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I make around 200k, but I have a seven figure trust fund. No way we're paying full pay for these schools - it's not worth it even if we can technically afford it. A kid that can get into Amherst could get generous merit aid from LACs ranked in the thirties, maybe even the twenties. We're looking to spend 60k the first year, then pay the yearly increase.

Easier said than done. Most of the top 30 LACs don't give merit aid. And even for the few that do offer merit, a lot of the schools in the 20s and 30s have become significantly more competitive admits over the past few years. PP's kids won't get merit aid unless their stats are well above average for the school.

I guess I'm exaggerating, probably not in the twenties. But we know non-genius kids that got into Ohio and Pennsylvania LACs with significant merit - Denison, Oberlin, Wooster, Gettysburg, and Dickinson. We'd be happy if our kids attended schools like that. I think all LACs are similar in teaching and I would rather save the money to help my kids attend grad school or provide some downpayment assistance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I make around 200k, but I have a seven figure trust fund. No way we're paying full pay for these schools - it's not worth it even if we can technically afford it. A kid that can get into Amherst could get generous merit aid from LACs ranked in the thirties, maybe even the twenties. We're looking to spend 60k the first year, then pay the yearly increase.

And my kid who went to Amherst beat out the kids from lower ranked LACs for his spot in a coveted PhD program.

Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I make around 200k, but I have a seven figure trust fund. No way we're paying full pay for these schools - it's not worth it even if we can technically afford it. A kid that can get into Amherst could get generous merit aid from LACs ranked in the thirties, maybe even the twenties. We're looking to spend 60k the first year, then pay the yearly increase.

Easier said than done. Most of the top 30 LACs don't give merit aid. And even for the few that do offer merit, a lot of the schools in the 20s and 30s have become significantly more competitive admits over the past few years. PP's kids won't get merit aid unless their stats are well above average for the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.“

The STEM fanatics are nowhere near as obnoxious as Mr. Wall Street, but they are inching in that direction. Do they not have the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” in the DMV?

If you love Amherst you probably didn’t also apply to CalTech or Wharton. They know what they are getting there, & are smart enough to know it’s not a vocational degree. So everybody can just stop with the attempts to shame the OP for not sending her kid to school to learn a trade. They learn how to think deeply, read between the lines, & write precisely at places like Amherst & Williams—probably better than at any other schools in the country, including Ivies. And those kinds of skills can be applied almost anywhere, as opposed to the sliver of specialized expertise some people here prefer.

You can gain those skills but also gain ones that lead to direct employment also, such as a top STEM education. They are not mutually exclusive.

My workplace is filled with people who have top STEM degrees (doctors and engineers and pharmacists etc). For the most part they do not have non-STEM skills (thinking, writing, etc).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.“

The STEM fanatics are nowhere near as obnoxious as Mr. Wall Street, but they are inching in that direction. Do they not have the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” in the DMV?

If you love Amherst you probably didn’t also apply to CalTech or Wharton. They know what they are getting there, & are smart enough to know it’s not a vocational degree. So everybody can just stop with the attempts to shame the OP for not sending her kid to school to learn a trade. They learn how to think deeply, read between the lines, & write precisely at places like Amherst & Williams—probably better than at any other schools in the country, including Ivies. And those kinds of skills can be applied almost anywhere, as opposed to the sliver of specialized expertise some people here prefer.

You can gain those skills but also gain ones that lead to direct employment also, such as a top STEM education. They are not mutually exclusive.

My workplace is filled with people who have top STEM degrees (doctors and engineers and pharmacists etc). For the most part they do not have non-STEM skills (thinking, writing, etc).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.“

The STEM fanatics are nowhere near as obnoxious as Mr. Wall Street, but they are inching in that direction. Do they not have the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” in the DMV?

If you love Amherst you probably didn’t also apply to CalTech or Wharton. They know what they are getting there, & are smart enough to know it’s not a vocational degree. So everybody can just stop with the attempts to shame the OP for not sending her kid to school to learn a trade. They learn how to think deeply, read between the lines, & write precisely at places like Amherst & Williams—probably better than at any other schools in the country, including Ivies. And those kinds of skills can be applied almost anywhere, as opposed to the sliver of specialized expertise some people here prefer.

You can gain those skills but also gain ones that lead to direct employment also, such as a top STEM education. They are not mutually exclusive.

My workplace is filled with people who have top STEM degrees (doctors and engineers and pharmacists etc). For the most part they do not have non-STEM skills (thinking, writing, etc).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.“

The STEM fanatics are nowhere near as obnoxious as Mr. Wall Street, but they are inching in that direction. Do they not have the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” in the DMV?

If you love Amherst you probably didn’t also apply to CalTech or Wharton. They know what they are getting there, & are smart enough to know it’s not a vocational degree. So everybody can just stop with the attempts to shame the OP for not sending her kid to school to learn a trade. They learn how to think deeply, read between the lines, & write precisely at places like Amherst & Williams—probably better than at any other schools in the country, including Ivies. And those kinds of skills can be applied almost anywhere, as opposed to the sliver of specialized expertise some people here prefer.

You can gain those skills but also gain ones that lead to direct employment also, such as a top STEM education. They are not mutually exclusive.

Anonymous wrote:“For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.“

The STEM fanatics are nowhere near as obnoxious as Mr. Wall Street, but they are inching in that direction. Do they not have the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” in the DMV?

If you love Amherst you probably didn’t also apply to CalTech or Wharton. They know what they are getting there, & are smart enough to know it’s not a vocational degree. So everybody can just stop with the attempts to shame the OP for not sending her kid to school to learn a trade. They learn how to think deeply, read between the lines, & write precisely at places like Amherst & Williams—probably better than at any other schools in the country, including Ivies. And those kinds of skills can be applied almost anywhere, as opposed to the sliver of specialized expertise some people here prefer.

Anonymous wrote:“For undergraduate STEM education leading to a job, maybe they were correct.“

The STEM fanatics are nowhere near as obnoxious as Mr. Wall Street, but they are inching in that direction. Do they not have the saying “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” in the DMV?

If you love Amherst you probably didn’t also apply to CalTech or Wharton. They know what they are getting there, & are smart enough to know it’s not a vocational degree. So everybody can just stop with the attempts to shame the OP for not sending her kid to school to learn a trade. They learn how to think deeply, read between the lines, & write precisely at places like Amherst & Williams—probably better than at any other schools in the country, including Ivies. And those kinds of skills can be applied almost anywhere, as opposed to the sliver of specialized expertise some people here prefer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridiculous. Hard to think of many schools that are worth a cost like that. Probably the only ones that are certain are HPSM Caltech and Wharton. Maybe Duke, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth.

Some of those schools colluded to keep the financial aid packages down.

IMO, colleges aren't worth $80K/yr. That's insane.