Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would anyone pay that much for these colleges?

For some people, that’s nothing,

Sure, but it doesn't mean they should. Some people don't understand the value of things, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would anyone pay that much for these colleges?

Because that’s what it costs??? lol what kind of question is this.

Do you seriously doubt there are people with more money than you in the world?

? that's not the question.

Don't care how much money you have. None of those colleges are worth $100K/yr. But, I guess rich people can be foolish, too. Look at Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

Princeton is much better than Amherst and Williams for undergraduate education. Same with Yale. And Brown. And frankly, Columbia.

Princeton can play, not better but can play so I will give you that. A close friends kid is at Brown now while their oldest went to a top SLAC. They are pretty open that the SLAC was a better education. Frankly (I can fit that in too) I cannot imagine Columbia being better.

I don’t see your point. Top ivies have tiny courses, rigorous academics, and real research.

I've been in both places as someone who started out at a premier LAC and transferred to an Ivy. The Ivy had more resources and a bigger and more impressive student body, but the LAC had better teachers and classroom experience. The Ivy wasn't bad, certainly, and had some great professors. But the small classes at the LACs are just enough of a different experience that I still remember it fondly despite transferring. This was almost 30 years ago but not surprised if it's still the same case today.

I've taught at both a SLAC and a T10 university (so, not Ivy, but ranked higher than several Ivies). I would say that overall, the faculty are slightly better at the T10, but students get more attention from and interaction with the faculty at the SLAC. The gap in the quality of faculty is more pronounced in the lab sciences than in the humanities or math. Obviously, there are also more serious research lab opportunities at the T10. OTOH, all the faculty at the SLAC are good teachers. Some of the faculty at the T10 are excellent researchers but mediocre teachers.

As a faculty member, I am happier at the T10, but will strongly encourage my kids to go to a SLAC unless they have a specific interest in the lab sciences.

Can you explain how there's a massive STEM gap but LACs are still dominating the Grad school admissions process for these subjects? Does it really matter that a professor is really great at giving millions of dollars in grants if the undergrads just have projects advised by grad students and often of little significance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

At the top SLACs, you’re paying for the best professors in the country and the alumni network. It’s not about the cost of living in the town.

Nonsense. Professors at SLACs are not making more money than professors at Ivies and the other elite universities. And obviously, the operating costs of research universities in major urban areas are many times higher than a rural liberal arts school. The fees charged by schools like Bates, Haverford, Pepperdine, Colgate, Vassar and so on are completely unjustifiable. The fact that Bates in middle of nowhere Maine costs more than Columbia in Manhattan is absurd.

Vassar as an example spends $83K on core educational expenses per student (not including things like dorms, food service, etc.). There price is well in line with their expenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

What are you basing this on? This is such a wrong assumption. My DC is at Yale and is having an absolutely amazing time. She has great relationships with professors (in one class the professor takes the students out to a restaurant every week, in another class the professor took students for a fully-funded 2 week trip to Europe last summer (we paid nada despite being a full pay family), her professors have made themselves available etc... This notion that a small college offers the best college experience is truly overrated many times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

What are you basing this on? This is such a wrong assumption. My DC is at Yale and is having an absolutely amazing time. She has great relationships with professors (in one class the professor takes the students out to a restaurant every week, in another class the professor took students for a fully-funded 2 week trip to Europe last summer (we paid nada despite being a full pay family), her professors have made themselves available etc... This notion that a small college offers the best college experience is truly overrated many times.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing mind blowing other than people keep paying!

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/10/college-six-figure-sticker-price.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t be outraged. Just don’t go if merit isn’t offered to bring the cost down. Why the handwringing? There are other options.

With a few limited exceptions such as WashU, none of these schools offer merit scholarships.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t be outraged. Just don’t go if merit isn’t offered to bring the cost down. Why the handwringing? There are other options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you are not going to get any aid at these places if you have a DMV house that is worth $1 million.

We have HHI $300K. Two kids in college. Places like Brown and Duke gave us zero aid this year because we have too much equity in our residence (a completely basic $1.2 million dollar DC, 1200 square foot colonial with zero upgrades).

Not saying we are not fortunate but just that these schools make zero sense for a large and growing middle ground of students like ours.

You could do it, but you choose not to. A $1.2 million house is substantial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

At the top SLACs, you’re paying for the best professors in the country and the alumni network. It’s not about the cost of living in the town.

Nonsense. Professors at SLACs are not making more money than professors at Ivies and the other elite universities. And obviously, the operating costs of research universities in major urban areas are many times higher than a rural liberal arts school. The fees charged by schools like Bates, Haverford, Pepperdine, Colgate, Vassar and so on are completely unjustifiable. The fact that Bates in middle of nowhere Maine costs more than Columbia in Manhattan is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

At the top SLACs, you’re paying for the best professors in the country and the alumni network. It’s not about the cost of living in the town.

Nonsense. Professors at SLACs are not making more money than professors at Ivies and the other elite universities. And obviously, the operating costs of research universities in major urban areas are many times higher than a rural liberal arts school. The fees charged by schools like Bates, Haverford, Pepperdine, Colgate, Vassar and so on are completely unjustifiable. The fact that Bates in middle of nowhere Maine costs more than Columbia in Manhattan is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

At the top SLACs, you’re paying for the best professors in the country and the alumni network. It’s not about the cost of living in the town.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are colleges in super high cost of living areas like NYU the same price as colleges in the middle of nowhere New England? Those dorm prices cannot be the same

Williams runs on $97k, Amherst about the same. These are as prestigious as Harvard and Yale, but at a lower cost than schools like NYU.

Williams nor Amherst are anywhere near Harvard level, are you crazy? They’re good generalist teaching colleges, but Ivy level they are not.

Both are better than any Ivy for undergraduate education. About 20 years ago Harvard actually set up a task force and produced a report in an attempt to improve their teaching to the levels of the top SLACs.

Princeton is much better than Amherst and Williams for undergraduate education. Same with Yale. And Brown. And frankly, Columbia.

Princeton can play, not better but can play so I will give you that. A close friends kid is at Brown now while their oldest went to a top SLAC. They are pretty open that the SLAC was a better education. Frankly (I can fit that in too) I cannot imagine Columbia being better.

I don’t see your point. Top ivies have tiny courses, rigorous academics, and real research.

I've been in both places as someone who started out at a premier LAC and transferred to an Ivy. The Ivy had more resources and a bigger and more impressive student body, but the LAC had better teachers and classroom experience. The Ivy wasn't bad, certainly, and had some great professors. But the small classes at the LACs are just enough of a different experience that I still remember it fondly despite transferring. This was almost 30 years ago but not surprised if it's still the same case today.

I've taught at both a SLAC and a T10 university (so, not Ivy, but ranked higher than several Ivies). I would say that overall, the faculty are slightly better at the T10, but students get more attention from and interaction with the faculty at the SLAC. The gap in the quality of faculty is more pronounced in the lab sciences than in the humanities or math. Obviously, there are also more serious research lab opportunities at the T10. OTOH, all the faculty at the SLAC are good teachers. Some of the faculty at the T10 are excellent researchers but mediocre teachers.

As a faculty member, I am happier at the T10, but will strongly encourage my kids to go to a SLAC unless they have a specific interest in the lab sciences.