“Only about thirty private colleges in this country can feel assured that the vastly disrupted ‘college choice’ paradigm does not spell trouble for them,” a former vice president of enrollment at one of these second ring schools told me. “For everyone else on the survival spectrum, the next ten years will not be pretty.”

Seems like everyone is glossing over this paragraph. How sustainable will it be for 2nd tier, 3rd tier whatever private national colleges and SLACs to continue to offer merit aid. I presume nobody would feel good about getting $40k in merit aid to a school that doesn't exist 5 years after you graduate.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's worth it to us. You don't need to understand.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are many top-50 LACs that do this -- give $20k-30k in merit aid to everyone who doesn't qualify for need-based aid. I wouldn't consider those third-tier.

OK...so it isn't really "merit" aid. It's they don't want to reduce tuition and I guess make everyone feel like they are special.

Well, it's "merit aid" in that these schools are selective and only give it to those whom they deem worthy of admission. But regardless, it still means that for those kids who won't get financial aid, these top-50 SLACs are much less expensive than the SLACs that offer no merit aid. You don't have to go to the "third tier" to get this benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You will have to be poor or rich to attend these schools.

They have made it impossible for the vast majority of middle income families that will get zero aid.

And, according to Selingo and this thread, these families are skipping on down to the 50 or 75+ tier where merit aid is plentiful. So don't hold your breath waiting for a bubble to burst so that donut hole families can well-afford T1-50.

I think this is true.

I don’t see schools like NYU/ BC/ Wake Northeastern or Case caring abt donut hole families

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Worth is relative to how much money a family has. all that is happening is the ends of the barbells are getting narrower and narrower

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You will have to be poor or rich to attend these schools.

They have made it impossible for the vast majority of middle income families that will get zero aid.

And, according to Selingo and this thread, these families are skipping on down to the 50 or 75+ tier where merit aid is plentiful. So don't hold your breath waiting for a bubble to burst so that donut hole families can well-afford T1-50.

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.

There are many top-50 LACs that do this -- give $20k-30k in merit aid to everyone who doesn't qualify for need-based aid. I wouldn't consider those third-tier.

OK...so it isn't really "merit" aid. It's they don't want to reduce tuition and I guess make everyone feel like they are special.

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.

There are many top-50 LACs that do this -- give $20k-30k in merit aid to everyone who doesn't qualify for need-based aid. I wouldn't consider those third-tier.

Anonymous wrote:Prestige is out. Equity is in. Colleges are intentionally throwing away their prestige. Political opponents of colleges are disparaging the college's reputations.
Cllege as privilege laundering is no longer working. Bare privilege is even eroding a bit.


This is all good. It will drive prices down as students stop chasing false prestige and colleges have to compete on quality and prices. Classes will be attended by students who want to learn, not claim status.
Employers and grad school will seek out talented achievers, not diploma names.

By this logic, college will not be needed. You just need to prove you are certified/qualified.

I mean, lots of companies have made recent splashes that they are doing away with college requirements. You either have to start believing them or not.

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.

You're kidding, right?

3% of 4 million families with graduating seniors can easily fill Ivy Plus full pay, and that's ignoring the people who get merit aid.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are right...but unclear if they would have thought it worth paying for that master with their own nickel. I get anyone pursuing a grad degree for free. In which case...nobody had to save anything for their Masters.

Most CEOs have nothing more than a Bachelor's (60%) and of course, there are plenty of folks starting and running tech companies that either dropped out of college or never went to college at all.

I just don't understand the rationale that graduate school is the new college.

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.

You will have to be poor or rich to attend these schools.

They have made it impossible for the vast majority of middle income families that will get zero aid.

Prestige is out. Equity is in. Colleges are intentionally throwing away their prestige. Political opponents of colleges are disparaging the college's reputations.
Cllege as privilege laundering is no longer working. Bare privilege is even eroding a bit.


This is all good. It will drive prices down as students stop chasing false prestige and colleges have to compete on quality and prices. Classes will be attended by students who want to learn, not claim status.
Employers and grad school will seek out talented achievers, not diploma names.

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.

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

Technically, we could afford the schools, but when it came down to looking at the offers, we didn't think the non-merit SLACs were worth the significantly higher cost. We are more informed now about which SLACs are known to give merit and which aren't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s surprising or newsworthy or forward-thinking to suggest that $200k families don’t/wont/can’t pay $400k for Villanova or Tulane?

Yes, because just a year ago those schools didn’t cost entirely that much. Tipping point reached.

Yes. Also test-optional makes these schools much less attractive. It’s one thing to stretch, financially, when telling yourself that your kid will be among his intellectual peers. Iron sharpens iron and all that. But if only 15% of students are reporting scores … what are you paying for, again? You can get a mix of students, including some very strong ones, at the flagship.

This. 100%.

https://www.tiktok.com/@supertutortv/video/7327004377451957547?lang=en

And yet they turn a blind eye to the lack of test scores.. wonder why..

I can’t understand your comment. Who is turning a blind eye to the lack of test scores?

Ignore them. There's a vocal brigade who believes Larlo didn't get in to his top choice because a TO student stole his rightful* spot. (*which he is absolutely entitled to because 1550 people and let's not forget above-par EC's.)

You might also substitute other totally blameworthy reasons Larlo was denied said rightful placement: that he's white, that his parents attended college, that a presumed-ignoramus college athlete stole it, that he's inside a donut hole, that the school wantonly practices yield protection.