I imagine Bill Gates will send his kids to harvard while claiming that online is fine for your kid or mine.

Anonymous wrote:The exercise is futile because higher ed is more likely to change a great deal more in the next 30 years than even in the past 30. In 30 years, on-line education likely will be much stronger than it is today as will new vehicles for delivering a college education that do not yet exist. Brand name schools may open local branches, schools may enter into joint ventures with others in new locations. The plethora of high school AP courses is putting so many kids into college near or at sophomore status that school may be competing more for providing masters in 4 years on a regular basis (it is done already for the most accelerated kids at large State U's). I imagine if Bill Gates or Warren Buffet decided they wanted to start a university it would become a serious player in under 30 years. No way to know what will be hot in 30 years. Probably the school with the best program on climate change.

Wrong. Things will be the same, only vastly more expensive.

The colleges that will be shaken up are the ones in the second tier, where families are quite reasonably asking what $65K buys that the state school can't provide.

These are the ones where very few are paying 65K. These are the ones that have SES diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Colleges that are most affordable and you get the biggest bang for the buck like large Flagship/State Universities. Also community colleges. $65,000 a year for a private is a broken model.

Very, very few are actually paying 65K.

Actually, plenty of families pay full freight at the top universities, including all the ivies, which don't give merit aid. It's actually a documented problem -- the top universities don't have as much SES diversity as they'd like. There are enough rich families who can afford $65K/year to keep the top 20 private universities in business. Heck, we're doing it for a top 5 university (we aren't rich, we just saved and we get parental help).

The colleges that will be shaken up are the ones in the second tier, where families are quite reasonably asking what $65K buys that the state school can't provide. There will be a big shakeup among the 3rd-tier private universities, and maybe among the 2nd-tier as well. As a PP said, these private universities would be wise to move into a combination of residential and online classes. But then it will be a whole new ballgame, and who knows which schools will break ahead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northeastern has an attractive campus in a great city, and they're making a big push to transition away from being a commuter school. They offered major bucks to DC and DC's friends, presumably because they want well-qualified kids from out of state. If they get rid of that ridiculous rule that you can't take 200-level or higher classes outside your department, I think it will really take off.

Speaking of those northern schools, Northwestern was a safety back in the day. Now it's really competitive.

NW is not a northern school. It is a midwestern school.

I suspect she meant the name. Northeastern, Northwestern. Get it?

Yep, I was playing off "north". Nevermind, though!

Colleges that are most affordable and you get the biggest bang for the buck like large Flagship/State Universities. Also community colleges. $65,000 a year for a private is a broken model.

Very, very few are actually paying 65K.

Colleges that are most affordable and you get the biggest bang for the buck like large Flagship/State Universities. Also community colleges. $65,000 a year for a private is a broken model.

Anonymous wrote:Schools in east or west coast urban areas -- Northeastern and University of Washington seem like they will benefit from the desire of kids to live in cities. My HS kids are not all that interested in going to rural liberal arts colleges.

We know -- you've mentioned this before, and it's great, but also completely predictable. Northeastern and UW are very different from rural SLACs, so they're unlikely to appeal to the same students.
Different strokes, babe.

Schools in east or west coast urban areas -- Northeastern and University of Washington seem like they will benefit from the desire of kids to live in cities. My HS kids are not all that interested in going to rural liberal arts colleges.

Anonymous wrote:Colleges that were "considered safety schools 30 years ago" and are very competitive now are that way because the population applying to and attending college 30 years ago was much smaller than it is now.

Heck, 30 or 35 years ago, Penn and Columbia were considered the Ivy League's "safety schools" but no longer.

Anonymous wrote:Claremont Colleges

Already hot. 4 of 5 "Cs" are the most selective SLACs in the country. Harder to get into than Williams, for example.

+1 This one gets the prize of the day!

Anonymous wrote:Liberal arts colleges in the south -- including Rhodes and Sewanee. Elon is getting some love these days as well.

Yes, yes and yes!

Anonymous wrote:New College of Florida

I was just about to say this!

The exercise is futile because higher ed is more likely to change a great deal more in the next 30 years than even in the past 30. In 30 years, on-line education likely will be much stronger than it is today as will new vehicles for delivering a college education that do not yet exist. Brand name schools may open local branches, schools may enter into joint ventures with others in new locations. The plethora of high school AP courses is putting so many kids into college near or at sophomore status that school may be competing more for providing masters in 4 years on a regular basis (it is done already for the most accelerated kids at large State U's). I imagine if Bill Gates or Warren Buffet decided they wanted to start a university it would become a serious player in under 30 years. No way to know what will be hot in 30 years. Probably the school with the best program on climate change.