Anonymous wrote:So has anyone ever tried what OP is desiring--a private school with small classes, great buildings, no financial aid and everyone pays $40k (or some other number)? Sort of like a Lexus but college version. Would the market buy into that? And if you already area a college how would you transition to this type of structure?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your only hope is state schools. State schools are lower cost, and therefore less affluent people do not need as much aid to go there. And that aid is partially spread out over the entire tax paying population, while at private schools, the cost for the less affluent is put all onto the small number of wealthier students, income from the endowment, and alumni donations.

I frankly do not understand why schools with huge endowments like Princeton still insist on punishing the wealthy by charging high tuition. They have plenty of money from endowment interest to subsidize the poorer students without this. I think it just makes them feel righteous to be able to punish people who have saved their entire lives.

Actually at my SLAC, the endowment subsidizes even wealthy people. When I was still in school, the true cost of educating per student was 2x the sticker price.

OP thinks that her family is subsidizing poor students, but I think she's wrong if she's looking at top schools.

With her DD's stats, she is not looking at top schools. Sure, if your kid has a 4.0 unweighted and 1600 SATs, it doesn't matter what your income is. But what if your kid is solidly in the 80th percentile and you are upper middle class? I guess you just bankrupt yourself and put your kid into a ton of debt. there is no choice.

3.8 and 1250 stats can still get you in a highly rated college with a large endowment. Sure, the kid is likely not to get into the most prestigious college, but you do not have to bankrupt yourself to get your kid a good education.

Can you name a school that would accept such a kid and cost less than $50k/year full pay? That totals 200k over 4 years, which is a typical home (and most even upper middle class people would need a 30 year mortgage plus the tax breaks that come with that mortgage)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IP is engaging in what is called "opportunity hoarding" and if you believe the things coming out of the Brookings Institue is a contributing factor to growing income inequality in America.

It is not "opportunity hoarding" to question a system that requires upper middle class Americans to have superhuman self control, so that they can save several times the net value of their home (which they needed a 30 year mortgage to afford) in order to send their kinds to college, when they don't even know in advance if their kid will be college material. Other nations don't do that. Look at Canada, which has a great low-cost public university system and almost no private universities. Most advanced countries are like this. We also used to have much cheaper state universities, but most state schools are "public" in name only, using tuition for the bulk of their revenue. Why does the US cling to what are clearly inferior ways of financing public goods like education and health care when there are plenty of examples of ways of doing it better.

Anonymous wrote:OP, we don't have as much income or assets as you, but expect we will be in a similar situation (re: student's stats and desire to keep costs reigned in) in a few years.

I have already accepted that our kids are going to the mid-tier state schools (i.e. GMU, JMU, VT-non-eng.) OR the 2+2 route (Nova Com. Col + UVA/WM) OR out of state schools in less desirable states that offer significant tuition breaks (i.e. Iowa State or Univ. of Alabama).

Basically, we are willing and able to support in state tuition prices wherever our kids can get in (be that in state or out of state at a cost reduction).

There are a good number of OOS schools that give at least some tuition breaks for the kind of stats your kid has.

My oldest is going into 8th grade this fall. I'm making my peace with the options and adjusting expectations accordingly. We are not willing to pay more the $100k for a 4 yr degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a guide (i.e. Listing of common data set in one place) where you can find the net tuition as a percentage of gross tuition? I'd be more than happy to pay more for my DD to get better instruction and smaller classes etc. So I'd probably start with schools where students pay closest to sticker at least for the ones that are good for my DDs stats?

The "net tuition" thing isn't going to apply to you with those financial numbers. You're going to be full pay.

The net tuition numbers are certainly applicable to me as I'll avoid schools that are within my DDs stats but offer too much financial aid as you are right we won't get any.

I don't think you understand the process. How much financial aid (institutional aid) is a function of the school's endowment and choices. Do you really care that much about how much aid they give other kids? Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IP is engaging in what is called "opportunity hoarding" and if you believe the things coming out of the Brookings Institue is a contributing factor to growing income inequality in America.

It is not "opportunity hoarding" to question a system that requires upper middle class Americans to have superhuman self control, so that they can save several times the net value of their home (which they needed a 30 year mortgage to afford) in order to send their kinds to college, when they don't even know in advance if their kid will be college material. Other nations don't do that. Look at Canada, which has a great low-cost public university system and almost no private universities. Most advanced countries are like this. We also used to have much cheaper state universities, but most state schools are "public" in name only, using tuition for the bulk of their revenue. Why does the US cling to what are clearly inferior ways of financing public goods like education and health care when there are plenty of examples of ways of doing it better.

??? Probably the best universities in the world in the U.S. People from all over the world clamoring to get in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a guide (i.e. Listing of common data set in one place) where you can find the net tuition as a percentage of gross tuition? I'd be more than happy to pay more for my DD to get better instruction and smaller classes etc. So I'd probably start with schools where students pay closest to sticker at least for the ones that are good for my DDs stats?

The "net tuition" thing isn't going to apply to you with those financial numbers. You're going to be full pay.

The net tuition numbers are certainly applicable to me as I'll avoid schools that are within my DDs stats but offer too much financial aid as you are right we won't get any.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think your only hope is state schools. State schools are lower cost, and therefore less affluent people do not need as much aid to go there. And that aid is partially spread out over the entire tax paying population, while at private schools, the cost for the less affluent is put all onto the small number of wealthier students, income from the endowment, and alumni donations.

I frankly do not understand why schools with huge endowments like Princeton still insist on punishing the wealthy by charging high tuition. They have plenty of money from endowment interest to subsidize the poorer students without this. I think it just makes them feel righteous to be able to punish people who have saved their entire lives.

Actually at my SLAC, the endowment subsidizes even wealthy people. When I was still in school, the true cost of educating per student was 2x the sticker price.

OP thinks that her family is subsidizing poor students, but I think she's wrong if she's looking at top schools.

With her DD's stats, she is not looking at top schools. Sure, if your kid has a 4.0 unweighted and 1600 SATs, it doesn't matter what your income is. But what if your kid is solidly in the 80th percentile and you are upper middle class? I guess you just bankrupt yourself and put your kid into a ton of debt. there is no choice.

3.8 and 1250 stats can still get you in a highly rated college with a large endowment. Sure, the kid is likely not to get into the most prestigious college, but you do not have to bankrupt yourself to get your kid a good education.

Can you name a school that would accept such a kid and cost less than $50k/year full pay? That totals 200k over 4 years, which is a typical home (and most even upper middle class people would need a 30 year mortgage plus the tax breaks that come with that mortgage)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IP is engaging in what is called "opportunity hoarding" and if you believe the things coming out of the Brookings Institue is a contributing factor to growing income inequality in America.

It is not "opportunity hoarding" to question a system that requires upper middle class Americans to have superhuman self control, so that they can save several times the net value of their home (which they needed a 30 year mortgage to afford) in order to send their kinds to college, when they don't even know in advance if their kid will be college material. Other nations don't do that. Look at Canada, which has a great low-cost public university system and almost no private universities. Most advanced countries are like this. We also used to have much cheaper state universities, but most state schools are "public" in name only, using tuition for the bulk of their revenue. Why does the US cling to what are clearly inferior ways of financing public goods like education and health care when there are plenty of examples of ways of doing it better.