People continue to rationalize to justify what they are willing to pay for college. Salaries have not kept pace with the cost of college. We can rationalize all we want. We feel we should pay because it is our child's education. But $240,000 is unrealistic for 99% of the population. Just because it is college, are we willing to pay any price tag? $300000, $500,000? Where does it end? Only those households with a big financial cushion or those qualifying for financial aid with no loans can look at those price tags with a serious face.

I'm guessing this 28 year old Princeton grad thinks it was worthwhile

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mdg45edmhm/eugene-gokhvat-28/

With merit and need-based aid, it was cheaper to send DD1 to an SLAC than DD2 to a state school with DCTAG.

Anonymous wrote:There are numerous online undergrad and grad programs from reputable universities. Of course, some online programs like Northwestern's are costly per semester hour. Some online programs are actually cheaper than classroom attendance.

Let's not go into the which is better, online or classroom. This is about college/university cost.

PP here. I am NOT talking about for-profit online programs.

There are numerous online undergrad and grad programs from reputable universities. Of course, some online programs like Northwestern's are costly per semester hour. Some online programs are actually cheaper than classroom attendance.

Let's not go into the which is better, online or classroom. This is about college/university cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U of Michigan, UCLA, Berkely, etc are so-called bargains IF you can get in.

These are bargains only if you are in-state. OOS cost of attendance at Michigan, UCLA, and Berkeley--all more than $50k.

True. The inexpensive way is to go in-state and live at home.

Anonymous wrote:U of Michigan, UCLA, Berkely, etc are so-called bargains IF you can get in.

These are bargains only if you are in-state. OOS cost of attendance at Michigan, UCLA, and Berkeley--all more than $50k.

U of Michigan, UCLA, Berkely, etc are so-called bargains IF you can get in.

Anonymous wrote:If you're looking for a "bargain" then private colleges are not for you.

There are numerous state schools that are highly rated and not a 'bargain' academically. The cost of a private university does not mean it's superior if it doesn't offer what you want.

If you're looking for a "bargain" then private colleges are not for you.

^^^Agree would be good to get back to the original discussion about ridiculously overpriced colleges. State schools are starting to look better and better to me. Even out of state schools are a better bargain than over priced private colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with legacy preferences or preferences for recruited athletes, but to the extent these preferences have become excuses to perpetuate race based discrimination (affirmative action), I'd say scrap them. A study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the old 1600-point scale):

Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160

Name the study, please. That adds more credence to your argument.

Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities
Thomas J. Espenshade, Princeton University
Chang Y. Chung, Princeton University
Joan L. Walling, Princeton University

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

I'm sorry but I thought you wrote the research was from three universities. Your researchers are all from the same university.

She clearly said a study "of" three selective private universities. Not "from".

Thank you. The "all the professors are from Princeton" comeback had to be the lamest comeback in DCUM history.

WTF does this have to do with colleges worth $55,000 or more?

Different PP here. Nothing, really. One PP has sidetracked the discussion of "expensive" colleges to a rant about affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with legacy preferences or preferences for recruited athletes, but to the extent these preferences have become excuses to perpetuate race based discrimination (affirmative action), I'd say scrap them. A study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the old 1600-point scale):

Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160

Name the study, please. That adds more credence to your argument.

Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities
Thomas J. Espenshade, Princeton University
Chang Y. Chung, Princeton University
Joan L. Walling, Princeton University

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

I'm sorry but I thought you wrote the research was from three universities. Your researchers are all from the same university.

She clearly said a study "of" three selective private universities. Not "from".

Thank you. The "all the professors are from Princeton" comeback had to be the lamest comeback in DCUM history.

WTF does this have to do with colleges worth $55,000 or more?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have a problem with legacy preferences or preferences for recruited athletes, but to the extent these preferences have become excuses to perpetuate race based discrimination (affirmative action), I'd say scrap them. A study of three selective private research universities in the United States showed the following effects (admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points on the old 1600-point scale):

Blacks: +230
Hispanics: +185
Asians: -50
Recruited athletes: +200
Legacies (children of alumni): +160

Name the study, please. That adds more credence to your argument.

Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities
Thomas J. Espenshade, Princeton University
Chang Y. Chung, Princeton University
Joan L. Walling, Princeton University

http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004%20full.pdf

I'm sorry but I thought you wrote the research was from three universities. Your researchers are all from the same university.

She clearly said a study "of" three selective private universities. Not "from".

Thank you. The "all the professors are from Princeton" comeback had to be the lamest comeback in DCUM history.

Anonymous wrote:Like 15:42, I too have read that white males are now benefitting from affirmative action at many colleges. Apparently there are too few who stack up against the female applicants.

I am woman, hear me roar!