Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why a lot of people are sending their kids overseas. St. Andrews Scotland is approx 30K/year. LSE is about 28K. National University of Singapore is 10-30K depending on what course is chosen. That's a lot less than 90K and those universities have placements/name recognition on par with Tufts, I would say. YMMV.

Define "a lot". There are 1600 Americans at St Andrews...282 American undergrads at LSE. There are 19.1MM students enrolled in US colleges.

Those are just 3 examples of non-US colleges. If you haven't realized, there are many more. So there are "a lot" of American kids studying overseas. More than in the USA? Obviously not. But if you'd rather pay 90K for Wash U than 28K for LSE, different strokes for different folks...

Are you including housing in that $28k figure?

Anonymous wrote:Within the Ivies, not sure about Brown and Cornell. Also rule out WashU and Northwestern. Duke and Stanford are definitely worth the money. But to pay 350-400k for 4 years at a selective LAC in the middle of nowhere no thanks. Williams is the exception because of its brand and yes Holy Cross has the connections to corporate boards but lacks the prestige of a Williams. Otherwise it’s hard to pass on large state universities at a fraction of the cost. Loads of full pay kids going to SEC and Big Ten schools.

This is a perfect example of what makes these conversations comical. The Ivies aren't a monolith but why Brown and Cornell? Because you don't like the color and the other is large? Duke and Stanford as adds. Stanford has always been elite but if you go back only 20 yeas Duke was an excellent Southern school but really only known because of Basketball outside to the South.
Williams because of the brand? What nonsense; most people don't know any of the SLACs so there is no brand value to the wider public. Among those who know Williams (and yes, they are the people who actually matter for anything important in ones school/career life) they also know Swat, Amherst, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Pomona, Carleton, etc. and do not differentiate among them at all because it is the education that is superior not any particular SLAC.

Loads of full pay kids go to SEC schools because they want to live the greek life, not because they want to be educated.

none of them are

It just depends on your budget. We targeted $360k per kid in their 529 plans, and we view it as a completed gift for their education and want them to spend it on such. So, if they want to go to Tufts, I'll support it. I view education as the greatest gift that we can provide them.

*Any* school that provides a solid education for DC, paving the way to fulfill her dream of becoming a medical doctor. We have a long way to go after college, it's just the beginning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why a lot of people are sending their kids overseas. St. Andrews Scotland is approx 30K/year. LSE is about 28K. National University of Singapore is 10-30K depending on what course is chosen. That's a lot less than 90K and those universities have placements/name recognition on par with Tufts, I would say. YMMV.

Define "a lot". There are 1600 Americans at St Andrews...282 American undergrads at LSE. There are 19.1MM students enrolled in US colleges.

Those are just 3 examples of non-US colleges. If you haven't realized, there are many more. So there are "a lot" of American kids studying overseas. More than in the USA? Obviously not. But if you'd rather pay 90K for Wash U than 28K for LSE, different strokes for different folks...

I got you...but no, none of the numbers add up to "a lot" in the scheme of things. Put another way, if someone says that less than 0.5% of all US kids go to college overseas, nobody reacts with "wow, that's a lot".

Also...just tuition at LSE for an international student is 34,000 pounds = $44,030. So, call it $60k - $65k total cost of attendance compared to $90k at WashU.

Of course, you fail to accept that many kids have affordable in-state school options which are cheaper than both or kids receive merit aid at private schools, and they take those options.

You're "failing" to remain on topic because the title of the thread is "which schools are worth 90K?" which is why no one is bringing in state school options, because they don't cost 90K.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. We went through the shock last year. We had pay for this, not this blah blah

And after our kid got into an Ivy and we did the tour and all of the admitted student days, we are now paying the $90k for the Ivy. It was fit.

+1 as state school kid--the response has been eye-opening. Kid being offered internships that were formally said to be 'full'. The reaction of recruiters. The reaction of people when asked where he goes to college. Very different from our kid that attends a state flagship. Kid is not in a STEM field. I do think the connections are important for some fields/majors. I was STEM. I also think after the first job it really doesn't matter anymore--if you get your foot in the door somewhere it becomes about your work - not your alma mater. But- we took into account 'fit'. This kid did not fit with the public in-state schools--really did not want big or football/fratty, etc. and the location was key too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why a lot of people are sending their kids overseas. St. Andrews Scotland is approx 30K/year. LSE is about 28K. National University of Singapore is 10-30K depending on what course is chosen. That's a lot less than 90K and those universities have placements/name recognition on par with Tufts, I would say. YMMV.

Define "a lot". There are 1600 Americans at St Andrews...282 American undergrads at LSE. There are 19.1MM students enrolled in US colleges.

Those are just 3 examples of non-US colleges. If you haven't realized, there are many more. So there are "a lot" of American kids studying overseas. More than in the USA? Obviously not. But if you'd rather pay 90K for Wash U than 28K for LSE, different strokes for different folks...

I got you...but no, none of the numbers add up to "a lot" in the scheme of things. Put another way, if someone says that less than 0.5% of all US kids go to college overseas, nobody reacts with "wow, that's a lot".

Also...just tuition at LSE for an international student is 34,000 pounds = $44,030. So, call it $60k - $65k total cost of attendance compared to $90k at WashU.

Of course, you fail to accept that many kids have affordable in-state school options which are cheaper than both or kids receive merit aid at private schools, and they take those options.

Tough to beat Clemson, UTexas, IU, Purdue, UGa at a fraction of the costs of mediocre privates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why a lot of people are sending their kids overseas. St. Andrews Scotland is approx 30K/year. LSE is about 28K. National University of Singapore is 10-30K depending on what course is chosen. That's a lot less than 90K and those universities have placements/name recognition on par with Tufts, I would say. YMMV.

Define "a lot". There are 1600 Americans at St Andrews...282 American undergrads at LSE. There are 19.1MM students enrolled in US colleges.

Those are just 3 examples of non-US colleges. If you haven't realized, there are many more. So there are "a lot" of American kids studying overseas. More than in the USA? Obviously not. But if you'd rather pay 90K for Wash U than 28K for LSE, different strokes for different folks...

It really depends on how much you make. There is no way we could justify 90,000 a year. The loans necessary would be too much.

Anonymous wrote:Would add Northeastern to the list of Tufts, BC, and BU but might look at Babson which Wall St journal believe ranked 1 for outcomes. At 90k a year need a school with great alumni networks and proven outcomes schools come to mind HYP, Dartmouth, Duke, Notre Dame, Williams for investment jobs and like Babson a school like Holy Cross with strong alumni connections and phenomenal placement in C suite and corporate jobs.

The HC troll is swinging hard this morning

Anonymous wrote:This is why a lot of people are sending their kids overseas. St. Andrews Scotland is approx 30K/year. LSE is about 28K. National University of Singapore is 10-30K depending on what course is chosen. That's a lot less than 90K and those universities have placements/name recognition on par with Tufts, I would say. YMMV.

Define "a lot". There are 1600 Americans at St Andrews...282 American undergrads at LSE. There are 19.1MM students enrolled in US colleges.

As a mom of a kid with LDs, I will pay what ever I need to for fit. It’s “worth it” to me and we have the money. Turns out, my LD kid ended up in a state flagship so it’s cheap. My other kid did private college At $80k a year but we had paid $50k a year for private high school so it was not a stretch because we had a 529 to use for college.

Everyone’s values and financial situations are different. You just need to follow your values taking into account the realities of your financial situation and stop worrying about everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:The ivies add in Duke, Stanford ,MIT, Caltech maybe Rice, UChicago Northwestern and Notre Dame. For LAC’s Williams, Bowdoin
Davidson(if want to work in South) and maybe as a safety Holy Cross because of their strong outcomes in corporate America. Excluded Amherst Swarthmore and Wash u because their grads usually don’t up on Wall Street or board roles in corporate US. Same maybe said for UChicago.

The Holy Cross troll has arrived with a typically weak analysis. I love the Davidson add to provide some cover but talking about SLACs on Wall Street while specifically excluding Amherst and Swat (plus not mentioning Midd) while adding Bowdoin and Holy Cross to the conversation is a rather misguided view.