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.

Anonymous wrote:Welcome to Wake Forest.

A bargain at 87k!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can get significant merit scholarship at Vanderbilt or USC, why ... pay twice as much at Amherst or Columbia or even Harvard or MIT.

Tuition is around $60K at these schools. Harvard and MIT have amazing connections. They also have some truly excellent departments. If you want your kid to go to school in NYC, Columbia is pretty great. Personally, I would prefer my child to attend an elite liberal arts college like Amherst or Williams.

USC is fine, but in a bad part of L.A. I suspect that funding cuts have hurt programs at UCLA. If your kid does not attend a nerd school like Caltech or Harvey Mudd, Pomona would be nice. I might balk at paying full price for USC, unless my spoiled kid really wants warm California weather.

Vanderbilt is great, like Washington University in St. Louis, Notre Dame, or Emory. I'm not sure I want my kid to develop friends and career contacts in the south or midwest. So yes, I would definitely consider paying an extra $120K to give my child friends, a spouse, and elite career connections in the northeast.

you're not making old fashioned connections of yore. you're meeting athletes, first gen and rural kids. better off sending your younger kids to 20k sleep away camps for the kinds of connections I think you're envisioning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's one way to be need blind, ignore legacy, and still get the traditional percentage of the top 1% elite SLACs desire

lol touché

Ha.

Face it, these schools are meant for the rich. They give spaces to the true poor for noblese oblige. They don't care about MC or UMC.

I don’t think you can say that about a school where over a third of the incoming class is first generation college and 65% of the kids are on need-based financial aid. Are there a lot of really rich kids? Yes. But the majority of kids aren’t.

But it’s bimodal. The super rich pay for the super poor to go. The middle class is simply not there.

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.

Why would you put Duke in that list?

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

That’s not the cost differential.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's one way to be need blind, ignore legacy, and still get the traditional percentage of the top 1% elite SLACs desire

lol touché

Ha.

Face it, these schools are meant for the rich. They give spaces to the true poor for noblese oblige. They don't care about MC or UMC.

I don’t think you can say that about a school where over a third of the incoming class is first generation college and 65% of the kids are on need-based financial aid. Are there a lot of really rich kids? Yes. But the majority of kids aren’t.

That COA is a way to scare away families with 200k or 300k hhis in favor the the truly rich. Look at the schools income distribution- almost half come from the top 5%, but only 10% are from the top 5-10% another 9% from 10-20%. Those are the income brackets that are full pay or near full pay without the ability to really afford it. This is Amherst saying the rich are welcome and the poor are welcome and the bourgeoisie can take their filthy middle class values elsewhere

Welcome to Wake Forest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's one way to be need blind, ignore legacy, and still get the traditional percentage of the top 1% elite SLACs desire

lol touché

Ha.

Face it, these schools are meant for the rich. They give spaces to the true poor for noblese oblige. They don't care about MC or UMC.

I don’t think you can say that about a school where over a third of the incoming class is first generation college and 65% of the kids are on need-based financial aid. Are there a lot of really rich kids? Yes. But the majority of kids aren’t.

21% of students are from the top 1%, 41% from the top 5%, 51% from the top 10%, so the majority of kids are rich and a lot are really rich

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/amherst-college

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's one way to be need blind, ignore legacy, and still get the traditional percentage of the top 1% elite SLACs desire

lol touché

Ha.

Face it, these schools are meant for the rich. They give spaces to the true poor for noblese oblige. They don't care about MC or UMC.

I don’t think you can say that about a school where over a third of the incoming class is first generation college and 65% of the kids are on need-based financial aid. Are there a lot of really rich kids? Yes. But the majority of kids aren’t.

Amherst is extraordinarily generous with financial aid and also recruits heavily from a lot of different income levels with things like all expenses paid visits for lower income kids to visit campus (or at least they used to do that—I doubt they e cut that program). I was middle class (real middle class not DCUM middle class) and they covered the vast majority of my tuition. I got into 9 schools and even though they all supposedly were using the same Fafsa need info, Amherst came out more generous than any of the other schools (other than my instate public). It was cheaper than going to UVA out of state.

But one of my good friends from Amherst’s kid turned down her admit in favor of a state public, largely for cost reasons. I think she did get some aid but it still didn’t justify the cost.

It also doesn’t surprise me that Amherst is expensive since the campus and grounds are drop dead gorgeous with incredibly fancy facilities, and they have really top notch professors and pay them absolutely top salaries to move to western Massachusetts where their spouses will have few employment options. Years ago I saw the average rates for Amherst professors and they were really very good.

My kid isn’t applying but for the right kid it’s a great school. And really pretty much all those privates are in the same ballpark for price.

I do believe a degree from a top school opens doors. My youngest just finished a job search and her degree (and performance at the school) definitely played a part. I would say that high school connections -- from a DC Big 3 -- have also been important in my kids' careers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's one way to be need blind, ignore legacy, and still get the traditional percentage of the top 1% elite SLACs desire

lol touché

Ha.

Face it, these schools are meant for the rich. They give spaces to the true poor for noblese oblige. They don't care about MC or UMC.

Things are f'ed up about the whole college system in the US