Anonymous wrote:You had 18 years to save. Plus cash flow some now. What have you been doing all this time? You knew this expense was coming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Midwest in an area where going to college was the expectation, but very little prestige given to this school over that. People mostly went public.

But .. there was also an expectation that kids got cars over their own in their teen years (new, nice cars). People cared indeed about brand names. People got married pretty young, bought an home at 30, and had their 3 or 4 kids by the time they were in their mid 30.

My parents were east coast transplants and we had to use the family car when it was free and applied to colleges further afield. We all went to Ivy League schools (in the day when it wasn’t that hard for full pay kids).

And now I live in Brooklyn and see this mania up close.

But as I watch my Midwest friends repeating this cycle I think, that’s a better way. It’s weird how this college thing overtakes a childhood. My old friends had more kids, roomy houses, less financial stress, got a lake house in MI or WI, are on track for retirement, and their kids had carefree childhoods. They all have fulfilling jobs. Their kids will too.

Why do we do this?

This is so interesting. What do you think is going on?

Same. I actually think my senior DD would love the midwestern university in the town I grew up in. She has toured and does like it but is influenced by the culture here and thinks that because it has a high acceptance rate it isn’t as good as schools with a lower acceptance rate. She could just pick this school and enjoy her senior year and also enjoy her college experience.

She is correct in that her academic cohort at a lower ranked / acceptance rate college is definitely for the most part, going to be inferior, regardless of the standard of teaching / research at the college.

You are completely wrong about this. Most students attend the big school in their hometown or state no matter how smart they are. It is ridiculous to assume that the kids who chose their state college with a high acceptance rate are therefore all less intelligent than the handful of kids who got pulled from the lottery pool of applicants to a college with a tiny number of seats.

Having hired a lot of kids straight out of college, I can attest that this is true. Many students accepted to the Ivy League are average smart kids who are grinders and have good organizational skills. There’s this myth that they’re all brilliant, and it’s just not true. In fact, I’d say the resume that gets you into an Ivy these days is likely to screen out the brilliant kid who has a burning intellectual interest in one area, but really doesn’t care about making a 100% in an area they aren’t interested in. Ivy’s say they want “pointy” kids, but they really don’t. The only group it seems true of is MIT PhDs. Other than that, I know more truly brilliant people who went to lower ranked schools.

Pointy v. well rounded are not consistently defined - and also definitions of each vary per school, and different schools value different levels of each. To say one school prefers one or the other is to not know what really happens behind closed doors (admissions).

The proof is in the pudding.

Say wut?

Don’t look at what they say, look at who they accept.

That is exactly what I am saying - I know who is accepted.

NP here. Do you really know STEM-oriented kids with Bs in high school English who’ve been accepted to Ivies? Because that’s what the PP is talking about.

Not every kid is the same, surely OP must know that. There are so many contingencies about colleges admissions these days that no one person can possibly list all of them. I think so many posters are just looking for definitive information which does not exist. The admission person would literally have to have that applicants file in front of them to answer any kinds of odds.

If that’s true, surely it confirms the point that there are a lot of super smart kids who are not going to Ivies these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Midwest in an area where going to college was the expectation, but very little prestige given to this school over that. People mostly went public.

But .. there was also an expectation that kids got cars over their own in their teen years (new, nice cars). People cared indeed about brand names. People got married pretty young, bought an home at 30, and had their 3 or 4 kids by the time they were in their mid 30.

My parents were east coast transplants and we had to use the family car when it was free and applied to colleges further afield. We all went to Ivy League schools (in the day when it wasn’t that hard for full pay kids).

And now I live in Brooklyn and see this mania up close.

But as I watch my Midwest friends repeating this cycle I think, that’s a better way. It’s weird how this college thing overtakes a childhood. My old friends had more kids, roomy houses, less financial stress, got a lake house in MI or WI, are on track for retirement, and their kids had carefree childhoods. They all have fulfilling jobs. Their kids will too.

Why do we do this?

This is so interesting. What do you think is going on?

Same. I actually think my senior DD would love the midwestern university in the town I grew up in. She has toured and does like it but is influenced by the culture here and thinks that because it has a high acceptance rate it isn’t as good as schools with a lower acceptance rate. She could just pick this school and enjoy her senior year and also enjoy her college experience.

She is correct in that her academic cohort at a lower ranked / acceptance rate college is definitely for the most part, going to be inferior, regardless of the standard of teaching / research at the college.

40% of kids at Williams, Amherst etc all recruited athletes. Why do people still buy this?

But Williams and Amherst are D3 which means they value academics and those athletes have to get in first. They're not dumb University of Alabama jocks. My DD was recruited at Johns Hopkins. The coach told her if she didn't have a 1460 SAT he couldn't even begin conversations with her. And conversations with her did not mean she'd get in. Just that he wasn't about to waste his time. These top LACs are like that with their athletes. She had to get a pre-read and then apply. These schools don't admit athletes who cannot cut it academically. You're thinking of D1 and D2.

Nope, I'm thinking of what I heard from both Williams and Amherst AOs. That roughly 80-90% of applicants are academically qualified. Academically speaking, the kids who are applying to these schools are as impressive as kids who get into these schools. The difference for athletes? That's it. They're athletes .. and in many cases not the best .. those kids went D1. Athletes are no different than development cases. They got the 1450 on the SAT so they don't bust the numbers (and now with TO .. they don't even need that) and they can play a ball game. Do you really think that 1460 is an SAT score that gets non-athletic kids past the first round? I'm astounded by this naiveté. The median 50% at JHU is 1520 to 1560. The SAT isn't that hard and it's highly prep-able. A 1450 is like saying your kid needed a 3.2. Not a flex!

Well u are wrong about that. My kid got D1 offers, but the academic caliber of some of the D3s was way above the D1 schools that offered a spot in his sport. Would you turn down a #7 school (6% acceptance rate to attend a #120 (85% acceptance rate)? No way! And the caliber of D3 in this sport is very high for that reason.

It’s going to depend on the sport. If kids are looking at million dollar NFL, NBA, etc contracts it’s one thing. Some sports there isn’t a lucrative future- so college is the end of the road.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm realizing that the top 50 or so schools are all about $80K+ and none of them offer merit aid, outside of maybe CWRU.
The rest have 20-50 full-ride scholarships for their most elite students but that's pretty much it for merit aid.
Then of course there is UVA and W&M which are instate. And UMD which is ranked just above 50.
We've in DC so none of these in-states are particularly relevant.


So all this constant chatter about this or that top50 school----are you all paying the $80K/+year sticker price(s)?

College is around the corner for us and I'm realizing that yes indeed, they're all about that much. Guess I knew that in theory but it's another thing
entirely to think "huh, they're asking $360K for undergrad. Are we really going to pay it?"
Sobering.
Are people really paying it?

If all you care about is top 50 and cost…there are options. GA Tech is $50k OOS (total cost) so $40k for you with DC TAG. UMD is top ranked for a number of programs, so that’s $57k OOS (again deduct $10k). UVA is unfortunately quite expensive OOS…$87k for engineering and business (o think like $77k for other majors), but W&M is cheaper.

OP here. Just used "top50" because about 90% of threads on here are about top50 schools and there are literally threads (or responses within threads) putting down schools outside of these.
I have kids with the grades and we have savings but it's just another level entirely to say, "ok, we are spending $90K for freshman year".

Considering a 14 week fall semester, that is $3400/week for college.

That is something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Midwest in an area where going to college was the expectation, but very little prestige given to this school over that. People mostly went public.

But .. there was also an expectation that kids got cars over their own in their teen years (new, nice cars). People cared indeed about brand names. People got married pretty young, bought an home at 30, and had their 3 or 4 kids by the time they were in their mid 30.

My parents were east coast transplants and we had to use the family car when it was free and applied to colleges further afield. We all went to Ivy League schools (in the day when it wasn’t that hard for full pay kids).

And now I live in Brooklyn and see this mania up close.

But as I watch my Midwest friends repeating this cycle I think, that’s a better way. It’s weird how this college thing overtakes a childhood. My old friends had more kids, roomy houses, less financial stress, got a lake house in MI or WI, are on track for retirement, and their kids had carefree childhoods. They all have fulfilling jobs. Their kids will too.

Why do we do this?

This is so interesting. What do you think is going on?

Same. I actually think my senior DD would love the midwestern university in the town I grew up in. She has toured and does like it but is influenced by the culture here and thinks that because it has a high acceptance rate it isn’t as good as schools with a lower acceptance rate. She could just pick this school and enjoy her senior year and also enjoy her college experience.

She is correct in that her academic cohort at a lower ranked / acceptance rate college is definitely for the most part, going to be inferior, regardless of the standard of teaching / research at the college.

40% of kids at Williams, Amherst etc all recruited athletes. Why do people still buy this?

But Williams and Amherst are D3 which means they value academics and those athletes have to get in first. They're not dumb University of Alabama jocks. My DD was recruited at Johns Hopkins. The coach told her if she didn't have a 1460 SAT he couldn't even begin conversations with her. And conversations with her did not mean she'd get in. Just that he wasn't about to waste his time. These top LACs are like that with their athletes. She had to get a pre-read and then apply. These schools don't admit athletes who cannot cut it academically. You're thinking of D1 and D2.

Nope, I'm thinking of what I heard from both Williams and Amherst AOs. That roughly 80-90% of applicants are academically qualified. Academically speaking, the kids who are applying to these schools are as impressive as kids who get into these schools. The difference for athletes? That's it. They're athletes .. and in many cases not the best .. those kids went D1. Athletes are no different than development cases. They got the 1450 on the SAT so they don't bust the numbers (and now with TO .. they don't even need that) and they can play a ball game. Do you really think that 1460 is an SAT score that gets non-athletic kids past the first round? I'm astounded by this naiveté. The median 50% at JHU is 1520 to 1560. The SAT isn't that hard and it's highly prep-able. A 1450 is like saying your kid needed a 3.2. Not a flex!

Well u are wrong about that. My kid got D1 offers, but the academic caliber of some of the D3s was way above the D1 schools that offered a spot in his sport. Would you turn down a #7 school (6% acceptance rate to attend a #120 (85% acceptance rate)? No way! And the caliber of D3 in this sport is very high for that reason.

It’s going to depend on the sport. If kids are looking at million dollar NFL, NBA, etc contracts it’s one thing. Some sports there isn’t a lucrative future- so college is the end of the road.

The top athletes in the county look to a future in .. athletics. At least part time. So yes, the d3 athletes are usually not the top in the country. Not always even the top in their high school.

Anonymous wrote:Many people on this board assume people had the funds for a 529 all these years. Many people did not. Also, community college is not a second chance for academic failures. Jeez. Many successful students have started there and continued their education, while working an almost full time job to save for future education after CC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Midwest in an area where going to college was the expectation, but very little prestige given to this school over that. People mostly went public.

But .. there was also an expectation that kids got cars over their own in their teen years (new, nice cars). People cared indeed about brand names. People got married pretty young, bought an home at 30, and had their 3 or 4 kids by the time they were in their mid 30.

My parents were east coast transplants and we had to use the family car when it was free and applied to colleges further afield. We all went to Ivy League schools (in the day when it wasn’t that hard for full pay kids).

And now I live in Brooklyn and see this mania up close.

But as I watch my Midwest friends repeating this cycle I think, that’s a better way. It’s weird how this college thing overtakes a childhood. My old friends had more kids, roomy houses, less financial stress, got a lake house in MI or WI, are on track for retirement, and their kids had carefree childhoods. They all have fulfilling jobs. Their kids will too.

Why do we do this?

This is so interesting. What do you think is going on?

Same. I actually think my senior DD would love the midwestern university in the town I grew up in. She has toured and does like it but is influenced by the culture here and thinks that because it has a high acceptance rate it isn’t as good as schools with a lower acceptance rate. She could just pick this school and enjoy her senior year and also enjoy her college experience.

She is correct in that her academic cohort at a lower ranked / acceptance rate college is definitely for the most part, going to be inferior, regardless of the standard of teaching / research at the college.

40% of kids at Williams, Amherst etc all recruited athletes. Why do people still buy this?

But Williams and Amherst are D3 which means they value academics and those athletes have to get in first. They're not dumb University of Alabama jocks. My DD was recruited at Johns Hopkins. The coach told her if she didn't have a 1460 SAT he couldn't even begin conversations with her. And conversations with her did not mean she'd get in. Just that he wasn't about to waste his time. These top LACs are like that with their athletes. She had to get a pre-read and then apply. These schools don't admit athletes who cannot cut it academically. You're thinking of D1 and D2.

Nope, I'm thinking of what I heard from both Williams and Amherst AOs. That roughly 80-90% of applicants are academically qualified. Academically speaking, the kids who are applying to these schools are as impressive as kids who get into these schools. The difference for athletes? That's it. They're athletes .. and in many cases not the best .. those kids went D1. Athletes are no different than development cases. They got the 1450 on the SAT so they don't bust the numbers (and now with TO .. they don't even need that) and they can play a ball game. Do you really think that 1460 is an SAT score that gets non-athletic kids past the first round? I'm astounded by this naiveté. The median 50% at JHU is 1520 to 1560. The SAT isn't that hard and it's highly prep-able. A 1450 is like saying your kid needed a 3.2. Not a flex!

Well u are wrong about that. My kid got D1 offers, but the academic caliber of some of the D3s was way above the D1 schools that offered a spot in his sport. Would you turn down a #7 school (6% acceptance rate to attend a #120 (85% acceptance rate)? No way! And the caliber of D3 in this sport is very high for that reason.

It’s going to depend on the sport. If kids are looking at million dollar NFL, NBA, etc contracts it’s one thing. Some sports there isn’t a lucrative future- so college is the end of the road.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm realizing that the top 50 or so schools are all about $80K+ and none of them offer merit aid, outside of maybe CWRU.
The rest have 20-50 full-ride scholarships for their most elite students but that's pretty much it for merit aid.
Then of course there is UVA and W&M which are instate. And UMD which is ranked just above 50.
We've in DC so none of these in-states are particularly relevant.


So all this constant chatter about this or that top50 school----are you all paying the $80K/+year sticker price(s)?

College is around the corner for us and I'm realizing that yes indeed, they're all about that much. Guess I knew that in theory but it's another thing
entirely to think "huh, they're asking $360K for undergrad. Are we really going to pay it?"
Sobering.
Are people really paying it?

Not us. We are not willing to pay that for undergrad. Our kids know this and have known this since 1st grade. We say it often. We will pay $50 COA max.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the first two responses indicate, one reason people do pay all this money is that if you’re going to blink, you really need to do it early, like when you’re choosing high schools, to avoid massive social and emotional complications.

Good advice. For most of America, there’s no assumption you’ll be able to afford/attend the best school you can get into. But for certain parts of DCUMlandia, it raises eyebrows to tell your kids they can’t go to Harvard even if you get in due to cost. If that’s you, you gotta tell your kids early and often, because they might be in for a rude awakening.

I think it’s so unfair. I was reading the wall at journal article today about the kids going to Harvard needs-blind for free. A kid that was middle class under $150k but in low cost of living area—while of our kids got into these top 10-20 schools we’d have to say you can’t go because we aren’t draining retirement t accounts. We have about $130k in each kid’s 529, but they’d need $345k for these schools. So - yeah it sucks to say sorry you can’t get go while both parents have always worked full-time, no time off. It’s just not an equitable system. These kids going need blind werent first gen they were kids of teachers (one chose to be a substitute-part time teacher).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Midwest in an area where going to college was the expectation, but very little prestige given to this school over that. People mostly went public.

But .. there was also an expectation that kids got cars over their own in their teen years (new, nice cars). People cared indeed about brand names. People got married pretty young, bought an home at 30, and had their 3 or 4 kids by the time they were in their mid 30.

My parents were east coast transplants and we had to use the family car when it was free and applied to colleges further afield. We all went to Ivy League schools (in the day when it wasn’t that hard for full pay kids).

And now I live in Brooklyn and see this mania up close.

But as I watch my Midwest friends repeating this cycle I think, that’s a better way. It’s weird how this college thing overtakes a childhood. My old friends had more kids, roomy houses, less financial stress, got a lake house in MI or WI, are on track for retirement, and their kids had carefree childhoods. They all have fulfilling jobs. Their kids will too.

Why do we do this?

This is so interesting. What do you think is going on?

Same. I actually think my senior DD would love the midwestern university in the town I grew up in. She has toured and does like it but is influenced by the culture here and thinks that because it has a high acceptance rate it isn’t as good as schools with a lower acceptance rate. She could just pick this school and enjoy her senior year and also enjoy her college experience.

She is correct in that her academic cohort at a lower ranked / acceptance rate college is definitely for the most part, going to be inferior, regardless of the standard of teaching / research at the college.

40% of kids at Williams, Amherst etc all recruited athletes. Why do people still buy this?

But Williams and Amherst are D3 which means they value academics and those athletes have to get in first. They're not dumb University of Alabama jocks. My DD was recruited at Johns Hopkins. The coach told her if she didn't have a 1460 SAT he couldn't even begin conversations with her. And conversations with her did not mean she'd get in. Just that he wasn't about to waste his time. These top LACs are like that with their athletes. She had to get a pre-read and then apply. These schools don't admit athletes who cannot cut it academically. You're thinking of D1 and D2.

Nope, I'm thinking of what I heard from both Williams and Amherst AOs. That roughly 80-90% of applicants are academically qualified. Academically speaking, the kids who are applying to these schools are as impressive as kids who get into these schools. The difference for athletes? That's it. They're athletes .. and in many cases not the best .. those kids went D1. Athletes are no different than development cases. They got the 1450 on the SAT so they don't bust the numbers (and now with TO .. they don't even need that) and they can play a ball game. Do you really think that 1460 is an SAT score that gets non-athletic kids past the first round? I'm astounded by this naiveté. The median 50% at JHU is 1520 to 1560. The SAT isn't that hard and it's highly prep-able. A 1450 is like saying your kid needed a 3.2. Not a flex!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people on this board assume people had the funds for a 529 all these years. Many people did not. Also, community college is not a second chance for academic failures. Jeez. Many successful students have started there and continued their education, while working an almost full time job to save for future education after CC.

But, if parents were blowing their kids' college education money on items such as privat K-12, instead of saving for college - that is indeed a problem. Op has not said otherwise, so people are assuming that OP's priorities were not in order. OP, do you work full time? If you need the money, or want something like college tuition paid for, generally you have to get a full time job in order to do so.

Anonymous wrote:Many people on this board assume people had the funds for a 529 all these years. Many people did not. Also, community college is not a second chance for academic failures. Jeez. Many successful students have started there and continued their education, while working an almost full time job to save for future education after CC.

Anonymous wrote:OP, yes, I have a kid in college and am paying that kind of huge bill every year. But the real sticker shock was when I just looked at med/dental/law school. The fourth year of dental was $130,000! A bunch of law schools were $110,000. We can manage undergrad for two kids (we are two fed workers), but the next part is going to be extremely difficult. Hopefully both kids won’t pick 3-4 year professional schools!