College Selection Process - Dear Lord I have one going off to school.

[molson]

I feel like it's so much harder for kids to find great jobs out of college and make money relatively soon. When I was younger I was always a believer that it didn't really matter what you studied in undergrad, it was more important to just get into a good school and do well to keep your options open. Is that still the case? If I was a college junior today (with my current 35-year old brain, however that would work), the expensive liberal artsy northeast colleges would turn me off. They just don't feel like training grounds for real careers. I'm sure plenty of people from those schools do great with humanities-based degrees, it would just terrify me to take that path. I'd start with a real specific path and career in mind, that I could always try to change later if I felt that was best. If you want to be a psychiatrist, or a history teacher, or hedge your bets a little and at least follow those two specific paths early on, I'd think you'd have such a big advantage over others in that field, or others who weren't pursuing any particular field.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

1) What does she want to major in? Comparing programs between schools is going to be a huge factor in your decision?

[/b]

Everyone "recruits" and all it takes is one college fair to discover that. The real culprit in your search right now is she's a junior. No one really can do anything for her until this summer and even then, until she applies no one will be able to say much. But they'll be very, very interested.

What I meant by early action:

Early decision versus early action
Early decision

plans are binding — a student who is accepted as an ED applicant must attend the college.

Early action plans are nonbinding — students receive an early response to their application but do not have to commit to the college until the normal reply date of May 1. Counselors need to make sure that students understand this key distinction between the two plans.

Approximately 450 colleges have early decision or early action plans, and some have both. Some colleges offer a nonbinding option called single-choice early action, under which applicants may not apply ED or EA to any other college.

The College Board goes into more detail about early action v. early decision here.

So this has nothing to do with graduating in December. (I'd encourage graduating in June like normal and enrolling in fall, enrolling early usually impacts your scholarship awards from the institution.)

With the Common app, she can still apply to the good schools on her list, the Browns and Wash Us of the world, while still applying to SUNY schools as well. Not to be a booster, but if you're a NY state resident it makes the most sense to consider them because the schools are just as good -- if not better, in some cases -- than privates out of state and they're way cheaper.

Two other suggestions:

1) take the ACT instead of the SAT just once during her junior year to see how she does. The ACT is different than the SAT and most schools accept both or either. For SAT schools they'll convert ACT scores to SAT and if she did 1400 on the two-part SAT, it's possible she'll score even higher on the ACT since it's really just a test of what she knows rather than a theoretical test and it can make eligible for more scholarships or more competitive for admissions at schools where she'd otherwise be a reach.

2) Wait until summer to start planning your visits. Just use this spring to do college fairs. If a school you're interested in has a "junior day" and it's within distance and you want to check it out, that's worthwhile but only if it's someplace that's not a burden. Honestly, differentiation between schools when you're doing a lot of them can be scant especially for the majors you listed.

So the things that will matter are going to be 1) class size 2) faculty to student ratio 3) how the dorms are and how long students are required to live on campus 4) is there anything to do in town outside of class 5) how diverse is the campus (like people from around the world, etc.) 6) how many majors/programs does the school offer?

Distinct programs matter because if she's not entirely sure what she wants to major in, having a school that lets you dabble in a lot of different things can be very useful, especially if she gets into school and decides OMGZ THIS WOULD BE INTERESTING and it's wildly different than what she went in thinking she wanted to do. At a school with fewer offerings, that can be difficult to pivot and you're exposed to less.

So the search right now matters, but your real search isn't going to kick into full gear until the summer/fall timeframe when she can start to apply places. So getting that list honed now and then narrowed down by the time the summer arrives so you can start to visit places and really narrow it down to 8-10 schools (4 locks, 2-3 likelys and 2-3 reaches) before application time because those application fees add up and it's really a waste to apply to 10 schools if you can get your list narrowed down to 5 or 6.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

I feel like it's so much harder for kids to find great jobs out of college and make money relatively soon. When I was younger I was always a believer that it didn't really matter what you studied in undergrad, it was more important to just get into a good school and do well to keep your options open. Is that still the case? If I was a college junior today (with my current 35-year old brain, however that would work), the expensive liberal artsy northeast colleges would turn me off. They just don't feel like training grounds for real careers. I'm sure plenty of people from those schools do great with humanities-based degrees, it would just terrify me to take that path. I'd start with a real specific path and career in mind, that I could always try to change later if I felt that was best.

It's far more important for kids to learn to critical think and write if they're undecided than to just pursue the hottest job out there. Because a lot of these kids are actually coming out of HS thinking about careers. It's rare I get kids who come to me thinking "oh, I want to be a liberal arts major."

Parents of all stripes rarely want that. Everyone is thinking "business" or "criminal justice" or "pre-med" or "nursing." It's always usually focused on things people perceive to be the best shots at a successful job.

But it's all fools gold because you know as a lawyer how many people get into a career and then after all of that training go "what the hell am I doing?" and then they're in their 30s back to square one towards something they either wanted all along or wayward looking for their next career. For the people who can be well heeled, it's not as painful but for folks who never really get their footing it's problematic.

So yeah, it's still important to get into the best ranked school you can and keep your options open, but it depends on the kid. Some kids need the structure and what I tell them a lot is..you're almost better off going to a state school and doing extremely well than going somewhere you'll not stand out. People are always pursuing top graduates of whatever school, even if it means getting your start in that local region or whatever.

The one consistent them from the past to now is, it's about the right fit. But it's a hard thing to make happen.

[Lathum]

I majored in History at Washington. While no Ivy League a very good school. I now work , happily mind you, for an insurance company. If she plans on a career in academia she needs to be prepared for a lot more than 4 years of schooling.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yeah - no way the overall average freshman at UGA has a 3.83. That's got to be honors program.

You'd be shocked at how much GPA's have shot up at state schools the past 5-10 years - even when I applied you would get into UMass with a 3.0 and an 1100 (out of 16), now that's not even getting you considered unless you're an athlete, a minority, or something really stands out on the app. Another thing to consider is how GPA is reported - for our lacrosse recruiting tournaments I collate and make binders for college coaches for recruiting, and the Mass/NY public school kids all refer to their unweighted GPA's, while most kids from Georgia/Texas/Private Schools tend to use what's effectively a weighted GPA that's closer to being out of 4.5 or 5 than the strict 4.0 system schools around here use. Kids at a Concord-Carlisle or Wellesley don't take "AP" courses per se - they may take Honors classes and then take the AP test. Actual admissions directors are smart enough to take that into account, but it does throw some statistical noise into the rankings and averages.

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Baldwin Wallace
Hofstra
Drexler
Roanoke College
University of Vermont
University of Hartford
St. Lawrence University
Brown University
Quinnipac
Le Moyne (We have a friend that has graduated from here, she wasn't like jump up and down excited, just stated it's a decent education)

The one we have both loved so far is Roanoke, right now we are taking into account atmosphere, dedication to students and doing research on several majors in each school. Just wondering if anyone has had experiences at any of these.

I'm in kind of a different world, since all the kids I work with are athletic recruits, so this may be off if a particular school is notably higher or lower than its peers when it comes to athletes (for example, Holy Cross gives no exceptions, and they've been bad for years, while I've known kids with below 3.0 GPA's and barely 1000 SAT's who got into Colgate and Brown.) And of course, it really comes down to her feel and what type of college life she wants - I could've gone to "better" schools than UMass, but I loved the campus and bigger student body, and like any state flagship it was rigorous and challenging if I took the right courses while also having its share of blow-off courses if I wanted an easy elective.

From your list, Hofstra, UVM, U Hartford and Drexel to an extent all kind of jump out as outliers. In addition to their lower reputation, all but UVM have fairly poor campuses/locations IIRC (Drexel in particular is consistently the ugliest campus in the country). If she's looking for a more urban location, I like St. Joseph's and Villanova near Philly and Tufts near Boston.

DT mentioned some of the NY/PA privates that are peers of SLU/LeMoyne - Hamilton, Vassar, Gettyburg, Swarthmore.

If you loved Roanoke, Lynchburg and Richmond are two more worth looking into. Elon and Davidson might fall into that category, but I have less experience with them.

One thing I do encourage kids to do is at least look a little further and check out some schools farther away at this early stage - YD listed Washington University in St. Louis, Emory in Atlanta, and Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh. I'd add Case Western in Cleveland, Rollins and Eckerd in Florida, and McGill up in Montreal. If she's adventurous enough, you could even look in the UK - my sister went to school at St. Andrews in Scotland, and even accounting for airfare it cost significantly less than most NESCAC's/private schools around here.

[molson]

I've never heard private schools referred to as "privates" before, but I like it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'd add Case Western in Cleveland

Really randomly, one of my son's tennis teammates -- an insanely bright kid who might be one of the hardest workers I've come across -- ended up going there on an athletic schollie this year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I've never heard private schools referred to as "privates" before, but I like it.

Heh, we often use a phrase like "he went to one of the privates" ... depending upon your location in Georgia there really aren't all that many candidates that would describe ... 'cause we'd call the lower-end ones "one of the little privates"

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Heh, we often use a phrase like "he went to one of the privates" ... depending upon your location in Georgia there really aren't all that many candidates that would describe ... 'cause we'd call the lower-end ones "one of the little privates"

I'm thinking in Atlanta saying "he went to one of the privates" has a different connotation.

SI

[Drake]

Take all of the freshman class profile shit with a grain of salt. Everybody is cooking the books in that regard (where we define "cooking the books" as the numbers are completely legitimate if you know the context in which the metrics are being applied and the university-specific formulas being applied to put as much shine on it as you can...as a recruiting tool for next year's class). Dredging up the data for those numbers is part of what I do professionally.

(And in case you're wondering, your average 3.83's today are just as fucking stupid as the 3.25's your university was bragging about in the 1980's. Think of it like inflation.)

The other reality, however, is that admissions really are much more competitive than they used to be, especially for state schools. They're actively targeting kids from the states around you and the global high achievement market. At my university, the rule of thumb is that one non-resident pays for three in-state kids. To get into your own state's university, you need to really be top notch, because the market is global, and you're the equivalent of a loss-leader thrown out there to keep the state legislature happy and not cutting another 10% from your budget. (I've sat in meetings where the idea was floated -- seriously -- of just re-branding as *not* a state university and cutting ties with the legislative dole. I'm not kidding when I say that we got 7% of our budget from the state this year. People were pissed when that number dropped into the mid-20's. Now it's 7. When your neighbors are griping because their kid got rejected by State U even though they've paid their taxes for 25 years, they're not kidding. If their kid wasn't in the top 10% of his class, he probably didn't get much of a look -- 'cuz there are a 1000 kids coming out of Malaysia who were, and will pay 4x the tuition their kid will bring to the table. I'm not defending any of this, just telling you what the state of higher ed is. There are routes around the traditional admissions process that make all of this moot for state schools, but that's a different discussion.)

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Exactly, they aren't a full ride offer right now, so I am freaking about costs as this is one of the schools she is leaning towards.

I believe the Ivy League schools-thanks to their deep endowments-offer very nice financial packages based on needs for all students that are accepted and attend, even more than the standard school.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Really randomly, one of my son's tennis teammates -- an insanely bright kid who might be one of the hardest workers I've come across -- ended up going there on an athletic schollie this year.

They're D3, it must've been academic.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by molson

I feel like it's so much harder for kids to find great jobs out of college and make money relatively soon. When I was younger I was always a believer that it didn't really matter what you studied in undergrad, it was more important to just get into a good school and do well to keep your options open. Is that still the case? If I was a college junior today (with my current 35-year old brain, however that would work), the expensive liberal artsy northeast colleges would turn me off. They just don't feel like training grounds for real careers. I'm sure plenty of people from those schools do great with humanities-based degrees, it would just terrify me to take that path. I'd start with a real specific path and career in mind, that I could always try to change later if I felt that was best. If you want to be a psychiatrist, or a history teacher, or hedge your bets a little and at least follow those two specific paths early on, I'd think you'd have such a big advantage over others in that field, or others who weren't pursuing any particular field.

I think today the brand name of the college you go to is even more important than ever, especially if his daughter wants to go into academics.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think today the brand name of the college you go to is even more important than ever, especially if his daughter wants to go into academics.

Being successful and well-rounded in undergrad is more important than trying to plan for what you might think you might wanna be seven years post-grad.

With a solid GPA and test score, she's not gonna go to a 4th tier school someplace, so going even to a public and doing really well at a school like that (say, graduate in 3 years. 3.9/4.0) is going to look a heck of a lot more interesting than going someplace that might not be as good a culture fit.

In a rush to out-elite everyone, so many parents negate the cultural fit for their kid. You have to make sure your kid and you can see yourself in the school you pick, because it's gotta work for you for four years.

I don't place too much importance on a student who doesn't know what they want to major in. Unless they're dead set and have been working towards it, it's just as well they go someplace that'll give them a strong well-rounded foundation, where they can interact with different people and have professors who'll support them, know who they are and have a community where they can grow.

Because elite or not, nothing's worst than being somewhere you don't fit in.

[rowech]

I'm going to go counter to a lot of information that is being thrown out here. From my experiences in watching my students go through the process, I think in 90% of cases it really doesn't matter where a student goes to college. It matters how you interview, it matters what types of internships and connections you have developed, and it matters how much of your schooling you will end up paying for.

Unless she wants to do something that has schools that are clear front runners in those areas, I would suggest finding out what she wants to do, find some universities that have nice solid programs in that area that are close enough to a big city where she will have plenty of intership opportunities and chances to build connections. Find out what types of scholarship packages they will offer to somebody with her transcript.

I have watched so many of our students go to the University of Toledo for engineering -- a school that is an afterthought in Ohio, they get awesome internships, awesome money coming out of college, they work a couple of years and move up quickly.

I've seen my cousin choose to go Cincinnati over Case Western, Michigan, and others as a biomedical engineering major and her experiences have been outstanding in the same way.

Be careful falling for the name of the school. Sometimes, and in my opinion many times, it's not worth what you think it is. Like anything, if you shop around, you can find some great places at a great price and if the numbers are right, possibly even free.

[Izulde]

Well, the Cincinnati example isn't quite the best one. They're actually one of the faster rising state universities in quality and reputation, similar to what UVA did about 10 years ago.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Because elite or not, nothing's worst than being somewhere you don't fit in.

All of the retention numbers we crunch point to this. By the end of the freshman year, it isn't the university's academic reputation, the quality of the profs, the mentoring programs or anything you'd think as post-college parent that brings kids back for their sophomore year.

It's engagement, community, and how much the individual student feels like they belong to the school they're at.

For most kids, that first to second year transition has become more of an emotional decision than an intellectual one.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Drake

The other reality, however, is that admissions really are much more competitive than they used to be, especially for state schools. They're actively targeting kids from the states around you and the global high achievement market. At my university, the rule of thumb is that one non-resident pays for three in-state kids. To get into your own state's university, you need to really be top notch, because the market is global, and you're the equivalent of a loss-leader thrown out there to keep the state legislature happy and not cutting another 10% from your budget. (I've sat in meetings where the idea was floated -- seriously -- of just re-branding as *not* a state university and cutting ties with the legislative dole. I'm not kidding when I say that we got 7% of our budget from the state this year. People were pissed when that number dropped into the mid-20's. Now it's 7.)

It is a fight between emulating "their peers" and following the mission of, you know, providing a cheap education to children who grow up in the state, but some states do make an attempt at supporting the in-state kids. The Massachusetts legislature long ago passed a requirement that at least 75% of those admitted to UMass have to be from in-state. Now, that's admitted, not matriculated, so yeah they love it when a kid with a 4.0 and a 1600 who's going Ivy but using UMass as a safety school applies, but it at least puts a cap on it. I think Texas has the rule where if you graduate in the top 5?10? percent of your class at a public HS and pass the state tests you automatically get admitted to public universities in that state. (For all the times that Rick Perry is/was a complete buffoon, he had some really good ideas about public education and how to keep it affordable and accessible.)

This also skips over the main reason why standards have gone up - namely, more qualified candidates. Even without the pursuit of foreigners or out of state students, the growth in qualified in-state students has easily surpassed the growth in class sizes at high-ranking public universities and the respectable small liberal arts colleges.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think today the brand name of the college you go to is even more important than ever, especially if his daughter wants to go into academics.

For fields that require post-college education the grad school you go to is definitely important, but undergrad doesn't seem to matter much. 98% of undergrads admitted to Harvard end up graduating and over 70% with honors - they can talk all they want about their admissions department, but everyone knows there is rampant grade inflation over there. And even without that, a 3.8 at a Swarthmore or even UMass is worth more than a 3.0 at Brown when applying to grad schools. Now, for grad school/law school/medical school, yes your Harvards and Yales are almost always better.

[nol]

Echoing that brand name doesn't matter (except for when the school is obsessed enough with its US News ranking to offer a crapload of financial aid). No degree is work $80-100k more than one in the same subject at another university. It's much better to be the big fish in a small pond in terms of getting recommendations for internships, grad schools and such down the line.

Also the inflation comment about a 3.83 just as smart/stupid as the 3.25s back in the day is mostly true, but I'd also suspect the inflation to be a symptom of income inequality where the better-off parents are in a bigger arms race than ever before to get their kids the best SAT tutoring and all those other things that are supposed to help "game" the admissions system.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

They're D3, it must've been academic.

{nods} The athletic was poor wording on my part, he basically went there on scholarship because they wanted him on the tennis team. He's more than academically qualified for it but the chance to play tennis is why he took their offer instead of quite a few bigger name schools where his tennis future was more doubtful.

[vex]

Originally Posted by nol

(I think that's the joke)

Thanks

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by nol

Also the inflation comment about a 3.83 just as smart/stupid as the 3.25s back in the day is mostly true, but I'd also suspect the inflation to be a symptom of income inequality where the better-off parents are in a bigger arms race than ever before to get their kids the best SAT tutoring and all those other things that are supposed to help "game" the admissions system.

Sure, the richer parents are at the forefront there, but it's also a function of the "worse-off" kids actually applying for and going to college instead of just getting a job out of high school. (And also the attendant structural economic changes that have completely devalued a HS degree.)

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Well, the Cincinnati example isn't quite the best one. They're actually one of the faster rising state universities in quality and reputation, similar to what UVA did about 10 years ago.

Which is my point. People kept telling here over and over which schools she needed to go to and she chose UC for the reasons I stated. Do the research and you will find other similar great bargains and great fits.

[MacroGuru]

Again, a ton of great advice. We will be sitting down today and going through this thread.

I will probably be posting more questions tonight and this thread I hope to keep going for a while.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

For fields that require post-college education the grad school you go to is definitely important, but undergrad doesn't seem to matter much. 98% of undergrads admitted to Harvard end up graduating and over 70% with honors - they can talk all they want about their admissions department, but everyone knows there is rampant grade inflation over there. And even without that, a 3.8 at a Swarthmore or even UMass is worth more than a 3.0 at Brown when applying to grad schools. Now, for grad school/law school/medical school, yes your Harvards and Yales are almost always better.

Your graduate exam scores have a big role as well. I hear the grade inflation complaints about the Harvards of the world, but if you admitting the most academically gifted kids around, would their GPA averages skew on the higher end compared to an average school whose class makeup isn't nearly as strong?

[Buccaneer]

Sorry to bump another thread but perhaps someone can explain something else to me. I read an article on most 'dangerous' college campuses (i.e., crime rate) and San Diego State was on the list. In the article, it said this:

With tuition ranging from $19,844 for California residents plus an additional $11,549 for room and board

I fell out of my chair. When I was there a little over 30 years ago, tuition and room/board were each under $1000 for California residents. I know college tuition has gotten out of control ($50k-$75 per year!?) but at a commuter school like SDSU, I cannot believe it's over $30k for in-state. What has caused such an astronomical increase in three decades even for schools like SDSU?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What has caused such an astronomical increase in three decades even for schools like SDSU?

Easy loan money, I'd guess. The more money made available for loans, the more schools are happy to find a home for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I fell out of my chair. When I was there a little over 30 years ago, tuition and room/board were each under $1000 for California residents. I know college tuition has gotten out of control ($50k-$75 per year!?) but at a commuter school like SDSU, I cannot believe it's over $30k for in-state. What has caused such an astronomical increase in three decades even for schools like SDSU?

Not sure what the SDSU environment was like 30ish years ago so all I can do is ask questions here I think

1) Was it ranked as "the #1 most productive research university in the country" at the time?

2) Was it turning down nearly 2/3rd of applicants back then (current acceptance rate is 37%)

3) Was it among the top producers of Fulbright scholars in the country at the time? (a fact that would likely give it the ability to demand a higher rate)

4) Did it have the 2nd highest SAT cut score of the 30 or so schools in the system?

While the increase seems utterly insane over that 30 year time period, my point is probably that it doesn't really seem to be what I think of as a "commuter school" at this point either.

[Buccaneer]

Wow, I guess you're right. Back then, they had over 36,000 students - mostly in-state - and a 2.0 hs gpa. Hard to change perceptions from real experiences, I suppose.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Wow, I guess you're right. Back then, they had over 36,000 students - mostly in-state - and a 2.0 hs gpa. Hard to change perceptions from real experiences, I suppose.

Avg GPA/SAT/ACT for admitted freshmen is now 3.75/1144/25 ... and the number of students enrolled is right around that same figure.

That's the same avg GPA for inbound freshmen at Vanderbilt, although with considerably lower SAT/ACT numbers. Those look to be in line with places like Mercer, James Madison and similar.

[NobodyHere]

By the way, I'm only seeing SDSU as costing only $6800 in tuition and fees per year. Of course that's for in-state residents.

[King of New York]

As for why college tuition has gotten so insanely high, there are a couple of factors:

1) Easy loan money. Yes, that's an important factor. But don't forget the other ones.

2) Rise in wealth inequality. Remember, each school has a finite (and relatively small) number of seats that it can offer. (Online courses might change this, but I wouldn't hold my breath.) Because schools do not have the option of offering 6 million seats and making just a little bit of money off each one, they have to maximize the revenue generated by each one of their finite seats. If there are people out there willing and able to pay 60,000 dollars for a seat--and if there is a substantial and rising number of people for whom 60K is, in fact, chump change--then schools are going to charge 60K. Schools are setting their tuitions as high as possible in order to maximize their take from the children of the 1 percent and from wealthy non-US (especially Chinese) families, and then discounting tuition (through financial aid) for everyone else.

Is this a sustainable financial model? Who knows?

3) Herd mentality. I've been in the room when college administrators discuss how high to raise tuition. Their main consideration? How high other schools raised their own tuition last year. It's no concidence that tuitions have congregated around certain price points: including room and board, around 30K for state schools, 60K for privates. Everyone's always watching what everyone else is doing.

4) Supply and demand. No one's building new colleges right now. Demand is soaring, supply stays the same, and prices go up as a result.

5) Emphasis on research. Research is really, really expensive, and high tuition supports research.

Administrative bloat, which is real enough, is more of an effect than a cause of soaring tuition.

[Izulde]

Don't forget the state legislatures constantly slashing budgets for public universities as well.

The administrative bloat makes me furious.

[britrock88]

As someone in higher ed administration, I will say that the ever-growing web of federal regulations that apply to colleges explains the growth in campus general counsel offices, for one.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Don't forget the state legislatures constantly slashing budgets for public universities as well.

The administrative bloat makes me furious.

This.

http://budgetandpolicy.org/images/Fi...n_Blogpost.jpg

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by King of New York

3) Herd mentality. I've been in the room when college administrators discuss how high to raise tuition. Their main consideration? How high other schools raised their own tuition last year. It's no concidence that tuitions have congregated around certain price points: including room and board, around 30K for state schools, 60K for privates. Everyone's always watching what everyone else is doing.

That's a decent point. Beyond the difference between in-state state school, state school, and private school I've never heard a kid (or their parents) really make a distinction between schools based on price.

[Flame Eater]

Hey Macro....Any updates?

My #1 daughter (a musician) has pretty much decided on Nazareth College (Rochester). We also checked out the Crane School of Music (SUNY Potsdam). It was okay, but you're right: SUNY schools don't recruit and there's little aid. Naz is throwing $$$ at my daughter, but Potsdam is like, "Hey, we accepted you. What else do you want?"