Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree - this is our plan.

I have been saying for a few years that I think grad school is the new college, so it makes sense to go to a state college and save some $ for grad school.

I honestly don't understand this logic at all. So many grad schools / grad degrees produce kids with poor outcomes. So many jobs/industries don't care about a grad degree whatsoever.

This is another skewed DMV perspective that worked for you, but you can't rely on it holding going forward.

I don't interact with too many people without post-grad degrees. Came to DC from NYC, so I guess it’s the crowd. My oldest is interested in engineering - and my dad and his dad were engineers and both had master’s. My dad’s company paid for him to get it (probably my grandfather’s did too). But I don’t think either of them thought it was worthless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My older child went to a lower-ranked SLAC with a lot of merit after the higher-ranked SLACs did not offer any. Now that it is my next child's turn, we are skipping over a lot of target SLACs because I knew they will not offer any money. There was no use getting hopes up or wasting valuable time applying. They also applied to a lot more state schools than their older sibling. I just don't think those second-tier SLACs are worth the full-pay cost when there are lots of great SLACs offering merit.

I feel like a lot of 3rd tier and below SLACs...the whole "merit" aid is BS. Basically, they quote a rack rate and give literally everybody merit aid. For some reason, they still want to keep that rack rate high.

I guess, if you are fine skipping over 1st tier and 2nd tier SLACs...why not just pick a Bridgewater College that decided to drop their tuition by 60% because they were literally giving everyone a 60% discount anyway.

Because generally schools that have tried this have not had success. Some people think they can't be "good" if their sticker price is low, you don't make kids feel good the way a "scholarship!" does, and you lose the money from the handful of families who will pay full or close to sticker price.

This. If a school is still getting applications from second-tier private high schools, cutting the rack rate is just leaving money on the table.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Markets will adjust and Ivy-plus will begin offering more made or reducing cost of attendance in other ways.

+1 This!

At some point the 'bubble' will burst and even the Ivy-plus schools will have to adjust as there won't be enough people with the requisite stats and also wealthy enough to pay for 5%+ expense increases per year. Either they'd have to significantly lower standards to let in others who can afford it or get creative with pricing and aid (eg. do what Purdue U. is doing) in order to maintain standards. Bubbles eventually burst no matter how long it takes, circa 2008 Real Estate.

Ivy+ are need blind and meet 100% need. So don't hold your breath for anything to change.

Yes but following that model they will end up with a barbell model, demographically speaking. There are consequences to that, many of which do not bode well for the schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My older child went to a lower-ranked SLAC with a lot of merit after the higher-ranked SLACs did not offer any. Now that it is my next child's turn, we are skipping over a lot of target SLACs because I knew they will not offer any money. There was no use getting hopes up or wasting valuable time applying. They also applied to a lot more state schools than their older sibling. I just don't think those second-tier SLACs are worth the full-pay cost when there are lots of great SLACs offering merit.

I feel like a lot of 3rd tier and below SLACs...the whole "merit" aid is BS. Basically, they quote a rack rate and give literally everybody merit aid. For some reason, they still want to keep that rack rate high.

I guess, if you are fine skipping over 1st tier and 2nd tier SLACs...why not just pick a Bridgewater College that decided to drop their tuition by 60% because they were literally giving everyone a 60% discount anyway.

Because generally schools that have tried this have not had success. Some people think they can't be "good" if their sticker price is low, you don't make kids feel good the way a "scholarship!" does, and you lose the money from the handful of families who will pay full or close to sticker price.

Except literally with a bunch of these schools they give 100% some form of merit aid. I would be shocked if people applied and didn't know they would get $$$s. I guess maybe it is better to get someone to pay 80% to subsidize the ones that only pay 20%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My older child went to a lower-ranked SLAC with a lot of merit after the higher-ranked SLACs did not offer any. Now that it is my next child's turn, we are skipping over a lot of target SLACs because I knew they will not offer any money. There was no use getting hopes up or wasting valuable time applying. They also applied to a lot more state schools than their older sibling. I just don't think those second-tier SLACs are worth the full-pay cost when there are lots of great SLACs offering merit.

I feel like a lot of 3rd tier and below SLACs...the whole "merit" aid is BS. Basically, they quote a rack rate and give literally everybody merit aid. For some reason, they still want to keep that rack rate high.

I guess, if you are fine skipping over 1st tier and 2nd tier SLACs...why not just pick a Bridgewater College that decided to drop their tuition by 60% because they were literally giving everyone a 60% discount anyway.

Because generally schools that have tried this have not had success. Some people think they can't be "good" if their sticker price is low, you don't make kids feel good the way a "scholarship!" does, and you lose the money from the handful of families who will pay full or close to sticker price.

our net worth is about 5mm. we have 3 kids. I don't feel comfortable paying over a million on undergrad.

if we had one kid, sure. maybe two kids.

but we need money going into retirement - we worked hard to feel secure. I dont feel like drawing it down this much right now. I also know that getting this money when we die and they're 50 isn't when they need it.

we went for the second tier schools that gave merit (the grinnells, Macs, overlies) and we earmarked 200k per kid to get in their 20s. I want our kids to be free enough to buy an apartment or go to grad school or start a business. I think there's still a lot of education out there, in a lot of different forms, after they're 21 years old.

Anonymous wrote:My older child went to a lower-ranked SLAC with a lot of merit after the higher-ranked SLACs did not offer any. Now that it is my next child's turn, we are skipping over a lot of target SLACs because I knew they will not offer any money. There was no use getting hopes up or wasting valuable time applying. They also applied to a lot more state schools than their older sibling. I just don't think those second-tier SLACs are worth the full-pay cost when there are lots of great SLACs offering merit.

I feel like a lot of 3rd tier and below SLACs...the whole "merit" aid is BS. Basically, they quote a rack rate and give literally everybody merit aid. For some reason, they still want to keep that rack rate high.

I guess, if you are fine skipping over 1st tier and 2nd tier SLACs...why not just pick a Bridgewater College that decided to drop their tuition by 60% because they were literally giving everyone a 60% discount anyway.

Anonymous wrote:My older child went to a lower-ranked SLAC with a lot of merit after the higher-ranked SLACs did not offer any. Now that it is my next child's turn, we are skipping over a lot of target SLACs because I knew they will not offer any money. There was no use getting hopes up or wasting valuable time applying. They also applied to a lot more state schools than their older sibling. I just don't think those second-tier SLACs are worth the full-pay cost when there are lots of great SLACs offering merit.

When cost is a factor, I don't understand why this (wisdom) is not common knowledge or at least in every college book and repeated by every college counselor

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Markets will adjust and Ivy-plus will begin offering more made or reducing cost of attendance in other ways.

+1 This!

At some point the 'bubble' will burst and even the Ivy-plus schools will have to adjust as there won't be enough people with the requisite stats and also wealthy enough to pay for 5%+ expense increases per year. Either they'd have to significantly lower standards to let in others who can afford it or get creative with pricing and aid (eg. do what Purdue U. is doing) in order to maintain standards. Bubbles eventually burst no matter how long it takes, circa 2008 Real Estate.

Ivy+ are need blind and meet 100% need. So don't hold your breath for anything to change.

My older child went to a lower-ranked SLAC with a lot of merit after the higher-ranked SLACs did not offer any. Now that it is my next child's turn, we are skipping over a lot of target SLACs because I knew they will not offer any money. There was no use getting hopes up or wasting valuable time applying. They also applied to a lot more state schools than their older sibling. I just don't think those second-tier SLACs are worth the full-pay cost when there are lots of great SLACs offering merit.

Anonymous wrote:Markets will adjust and Ivy-plus will begin offering more made or reducing cost of attendance in other ways.

+1 This!

At some point the 'bubble' will burst and even the Ivy-plus schools will have to adjust as there won't be enough people with the requisite stats and also wealthy enough to pay for 5%+ expense increases per year. Either they'd have to significantly lower standards to let in others who can afford it or get creative with pricing and aid (eg. do what Purdue U. is doing) in order to maintain standards. Bubbles eventually burst no matter how long it takes, circa 2008 Real Estate.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the tipping point has arrived. The 10% - me included - are applying the what can we afford vs what we are willing to pay to the college equation.

I can technically afford a Lexus but buy a Toyota.
I can technically afford University of Richmond but buy UMD Honors College.

This. Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:Truthfully, as a slightly higher than donut hole range family---it's hard to justify $85k-90k year at even the top 10 schools. It's gotten way out of hand!

This! I’ll never understand it. No place is worth that much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And why wouldn't parents (and their kids) say, if Ivy + doesn't want my kid (me), then I'll send him (I'll go) to an OOS honors college on a full ride? (see ASU, UoA)

Makes sense, especially with $90k a year tuition, which is insane/offensive/abusive.

Well the tuition isn't $90k but still there is plenty of demand for those pricey privates ranked around #30-50.

U of Miami is $93k cost of attendance.

Tuition is $60k; cost of attendance is $88k. But the point is that there is still plenty of demand, even at $90k all in, for these pricey privates. We all have choices.

Truthfully, as a slightly higher than donut hole range family---it's hard to justify $85k-90k year at even the top 10 schools. It's gotten way out of hand!