Say you get into an ivy, or a school like u of chicago- is the price worth it?

to show where some of the muddling isn't helpful, MIT is like $90k tuition, and some of the other ivy-plus schools like hopkins, chicago, and let's be charitable, vandy, are all $70k. so, while arguably "as good" as an ivy in current rankings -- interspersed among them -- they aren't a cost savings.

in terms of the rich but cash poor parent, it's no more affordable than harvard.

this is why they chat up state schools. but the state schools are all at least 1-2 heats away ie not in the fast heat. you've dropped from 1500+ SAT to high 13s or 14s. and in rank we're talking end of the top 20, or below. michigan is 30-something in state.

if you're saying you can pick a non ivy and do well, fine, yeah, a handful of top schools rank up with them, and depending on the major, might be esteemed higher in that field.

re the state school arguments

(1) you're kind of pulling a bait and switch. you're emphasizing expense -- but that is to daddy, not me. there is no cost-benefit analysis for junior because junior is not writing the check, or taking on any debt. it's a fake "worth it" argument. it's can daddy afford the check.

(2) at which point, it's a different calculus skewing towards high tier state schools. the state schools in general will be cheaper, but some smarter than others. duh, favor them. this is not a deep thought exercise.

(3) and personally i'd be angry if i had a 1500+ and was at UT and not harvard because daddy spent it all on hos corvette and lake boat and a bigger house than we needed. y'all can spin that as some kid saying "the school is good enough, and i just want a job," but how true is that attitude of any 1500+ varsity runner you ever met? it's more the attitude of an 1100 SAT jock who isn't even in contention for these schools.

(4) as a poor kid, daddy isn't paying my bills. i paid what aid didn't pay. your argument lacks universality.

(5) if i am paying my own way and i require aid, the calculus is different. i can't afford most state schools -- and none worth a crap -- even working 40 hours all summer. so i am borrowing everywhere. and that borrowing maxes out most places. and then each school offers me their institutional aid. which varies.

and, duh, i favor the ones who make me a better offer. my experience, top rated private. state was more expensive, as they cover less of your need. they don't have endless grants and scholarships to cover the gaps.

(6) when i read a thread talking about "value," i kind of assume we're talking the cost-benefit of the aid recipient self-payer, or the kid who mixes light family cost with aid. you have to repay the loans. what are the right tradeoffs on those loans. my sense, better schools might either give you free tuition or offer better aid. period. and then also more income when you leave.

(7) i don't see "what does daddy pay" as the same sort of value discussion, other than you're throwing in school quality as a tiebreaker or co-variable atop school sticker cost. you're trying to find a cheap place and ruling better, more expensive ones out on purpose. this is not maximizing other than daddy's bank account.

(8) last, the real argument here is more like is it worth it to pay for some expensive third rate private. salve regina has d3 sports, a pretty campus, but is a mediocre school, and costs $50k. financial aid is meh there, like 70-something percent of need met. an average grad doesn't make 6 figures in 6 years, they make $55k.

now, that's a different cost-benefit.

what i mean by not affording state schools, is at this point, without financial aid, above mere juco type schools, most state schools are so expensive junior can't work all summer and cut a check from his work money that covers full tuition. it's not 1970 anymore.

heck, unless you are rich, most families, without aid, couldn't even afford rutgers or michigan. or maybe something $15k like texas a&m.

so this is only really a rich person argument. for most people even an in state school is beyond out of pocket affordability. you have to get aid. at which point IMO it's the school that makes the best aid offer.

and, yeah, part of value, education, community, etc. aside......is ROI. but my response on this thread is my general experience, with limited exceptions, better school = better ROI.

the ROI problem gets worse the more you have to settle on school choice. ironically, contrary to the argument of daddy pays folks, State will be lower ROI, just less expense also. and as i said, the real debate here is the worse the school gets, it may still have a fairly tough sticker, or require you to max out loans just the same, but with significantly lower return.

but to me a lot of this thread is daddy pays folks trying to spin "i went cheap" as "i went best." the reality is daddy couldn't afford best. they weren't even trying for the top x schools because they are all above y tuition level. and if daddy carries the note, junior isn't taking on debt to do cost-benefit. so that line of discussion is fake other than daddy grousing as he checks his bank balance. daddy wasn't even considering is state better than harvard. he was considering he can't afford harvard and that's that.

to get at something, as someone who was getting like 100% aid, that poor, the panicked discussion of merit scholarships at running schools struck me funny. cause i am getting a grant anyway, probably. it dawned on me at a point, it's either less in loans that you're still not paying while in school, or it's a rich kid thing where daddy would otherwise pay the full tuition. you can get merit without applying for aid.

which is one middle answer here. someone mentioned getting in on a full. or even a partial. or the school has an honors program or an unusual strong program highly ranked. eg GA Tech and computers. that would be complicating this discussion.

It depends what you want to do.

Business, yes. Networking is everything.

Engineering, maybe. It depends what you want to do with the engineering degree. Most engineering jobs want skills, skills, skills. If you are a motorhead with an engineering degree from State U, you will do better than an Ivy grad who only knows how to grind out problem sets.

BTW, Ken Fisher does not hire Ivy grads. He only hires State U grads or similar. He says it is not important what you can do for him, but only what you will do for him. He says State U grads are willing to work harder for him.

One of his direct reports is a Columbia/Barnard grad. Sr VP Global Marketing.

His COO is a Stanford MBA, another VP is Cal Berkeley undergrad, another Ivy+ school.

Ken Fisher has been fun to research. His reputation is as a guy who worked his way up by the bootstraps, starting his now $300 billion investment fund with just $250.

Not true at all...his father was Philip Fisher a famous investor and owner of Fisher&Co, a well known money manager. Philip attended Stanford, also Stanford MBA and even taught investing at Stanford.

Ken was simply following his Dad into money management initially only with big institutional clients, then later with high net worth individuals. (This by no means is saying it was easy.)

4 of the 12 Executive Team members now at Ken Fisher Inc went to Ivy+ colleges, and of course the money that raised young Ken and sent him to college at Cal Humboldt originated at Stanford.