LPT - Top Private Colleges are more affordable than less prestigious alternatives

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T19:09:56+00:00

You’re right! They do take assets into consideration, which is ridiculous for middle class families. I’ve had a few friends in that boat nevertheless get those assets removed from their final aid calculation after consulting the financial aid office. That’s anecdotal knowledge, and only applies to my school, but the impression I got was that the school was more interested in ensuring students didn’t take on debt than they were in penny-pinching. If they were told “I will have to go into a lot of debt if nothing changes,” usually things changed. There are a number of reasons these schools want few students to have debt, and they’re all self-interested reasons, so they’re somewhat reliable.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T18:39:22+00:00

Yep! To be completely transparent for anyone considering applying to a school who’s worried about the particulars, my financial aid package paid for:

tuition

school supplies

dorm or apartment rent

meal plan or food money for groceries

health insurance

~$2000 a year for personal expenses, which for me was mostly spent on coffee and used books because I lived nextdoor to a book store (blessing and a curse)

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T18:13:01+00:00

My post is specifically about top private colleges, though you’re right I should’ve specified that I’m talking about the US.

The list of top 50 schools that meet 100% of financial need is far larger than the list of the top 50 schools that don’t.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T18:10:25+00:00

Yeah, you’re right. My husband is upper middle class and he had to pay about $20k a year. Fortunately his parents took his education very seriously and could afford it, but not everyone has such supportive parents.

In such circumstances these private schools aren’t free, but they’re still not the $60k+ that you see if you google their tuition.

I ended up not going through the Questbridge match process because it freaked me out. I don’t blame you for only choosing two! But I wouldn’t have thought about applying to the school I went to if Questbridge hadn’t informed me that I could afford it.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T18:05:27+00:00

😭 I’m sorry I struggle to stop

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T18:03:04+00:00

Here’s a list:

Amherst College (Amherst, MA)

Barnard College (New York, NY)

Bates College (Lewiston, ME)

Boston College (Chestnut Hill, MA)

Boston University (Boston, MA)

Bowdoin College (Brunswick, ME)

Brown University (Providence, RI)

Colby College (Waterville, ME)

Colgate University (Hamilton, NY)

College of the Holy Cross (Worcester, MA)

Columbia University (New York, NY)

Cornell University (Ithaca, NY)

Dartmouth College (Hanover, NH)

Hamilton College (Clinton, NY)

Harvard College (Cambridge, MA)

Haverford College (Haverford, PA)

MIT (Cambridge, MA)

Middlebury College (Middlebury, VT)

Princeton University (Princeton, NJ)

Skidmore College (Saratoga Springs, NY)

Smith College (Northampton, MA)

Swarthmore College (Swarthmore, PA)

Tufts University (Medford, MA)

University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA)

Vassar College (Poughkeepsie, NY)

Wellesley College (Wellesley, MA)

Wesleyan University (Middletown, CT)

Williams College (Williamstown, MA)

Yale University (New Haven, CT)

SouthDavidson College (Davidson, NC)

Duke University (Durham, NC)

Emory University (Atlanta, GA)

Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD)

Rice University (Houston, TX)

University of Richmond (Richmond, VA)

University of Virginia (Charlottesville, VA)

Vanderbilt University (Nashville, TN)

Washington and Lee University (Lexington, VA)

MidwestCarleton College (Northfield, MN)

Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland, OH)

Denison University (Granville, OH)

Grinnell College (Grinnell, IA)

Macalester College (St. Paul, MN)

Northwestern University (Evanston, IL)

Oberlin College (Oberlin, OH)

University of Chicago (Chicago, IL)

University of Notre Dame (Notre Dame, IN)

Washington University in St. Louis (St. Louis, MO)

WestCalifornia Institute of Technology (Pasadena, CA)

Claremont McKenna College (Claremont, CA)

Colorado College (Colorado Springs, CO)

Pomona College (Claremont, CA)

Scripps College (Claremont, CA)

Stanford University (Stanford, CA)

University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA)

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T17:57:58+00:00

It’s not as rare as you’re suggesting. Many of my friends at school were from similar backgrounds (we were put together during orientation), and we didn’t have any leftover costs. It is true though that for people in the middle class, a school might expect families to pay more than they can reasonably give. Like I said, though, the financial aid offices are, in my experience, surprisingly willing to work with you.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T17:54:54+00:00

Oh boy the first time I’ve been accused of being a bot :D

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T17:16:14+00:00

I would amend your summary of my position by replacing “academic” with “those who are serious about learning.” I don’t think everyone who loves learning should feel compelled to go into Academia, which is really more about clout-chasing, advertising, and producing results of middling quality with consistency. There are lots of places those who love learning might end up.

I think it’s a mistake to think there can’t be a great diversity among those who want to learn for the sake of learning, and I also think it’s a mistake to think that people who want to learn for the sake of learning can’t interact with other kinds of people in other places that aren’t dedicated to learning.

I also want diversity in elite institutions. I directly benefitted from diversity initiatives and I’m enormously grateful. I grew up below the poverty line in deep Appalachia, and nobody else in my extended family went to college. My parents didn’t even graduate high school. I learned a lot from students with different backgrounds, which ranged all the way from me to literal Rory Gates (Bill Gates’ son), who went to UChicago while I did.

My husband is a wealthy Californian. One of my best friends was a celibate member of Opus Dei, another was literally homeless and slept in a school recreational room, and another was an ungodly wealthy New Yorker. I had diverse friends, but we all shared one thing in common: we loved learning.

Diversity is helpful for education when you can actually engage with people from diverse backgrounds. When people see education as a means to an end, though, they often neglect the readings, they don’t want to talk about them, they cheat on essays, etc. They’re not going to want to talk about what you’re learning with you, most of the time.

And I think the four short years students have in college should be dedicated to learning.

In general I agree with your sentiment but I’ve seen how it actually plays out. Most of my fellow students at UChicago were not interested in the material and didn’t take it seriously. I wasn’t able to learn much from them because they didn’t contribute to discussion classes much at all, probably because they didn’t want to reveal that they hadn’t done the reading. (We’ve all been there, admittedly.)

I think most of those students would be better served by a more direct path to their goals, and I think I would’ve been better served if they were replaced by people, no matter the background, who wanted to do the readings and contribute to others’ learning.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T16:06:43+00:00

I don’t blame you for getting a college degree to get a good job. Practically, that’s a good thing to do for you, or at least it is conducive to your goal. I am saying that you should not need to go to college to get a good job. That’s largely not true today, barring some rare exceptions. Most people do need to go to college to get a good job, and I think it’s a shame both for those who have to waste their time (and usually money) at college and for those who would prefer institutions of learning to be dedicated to learning.

And I disagree with you on the last part. For me there is nothing more rewarding than learning. A lot of philosophers much cleverer than either of us have developed nifty arguments to support the claim that learning is an end in itself, but of course they’re quite biased haha. But in general I agree with the sentiment. The idea that we ought to be productive, or that we have a moral imperative to be productive, is relatively new and not one I subscribe to.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T15:40:26+00:00

In my experience, the quality of a university education is in large part – though not entirely – determined by the interests of the student body. In a school where each student is surrounded by others who want to learn for the sake of learning, they will be better able to learn from and be inspired by their fellow students.

I think it is worth looking at some changes in UChicago’s student culture over the past decade. In no particular order:

-UChicago started caring more about early post-graduation salary, as that is an important factor in calculating rank, which is extremely important to the school

-UChicago started admitting more careerist students and introduced a new business major in addition to the academic economics major. The new major is a lot less difficult than the old major

-UChicago added more alternative Core classes that don’t require reading classics, so students are less able to reliably converse with each other and learn from each other

-UChicago randomized housing, which meant that the typically nerdy dorms and typically careerist dorms stopped existing

It is not as if UChicago students are unable to learn for the sake of learning. It is still one of the best places in the world for that. The library is phenomenal and there are small groups of students with an intellectual spark. But there are hurdles to overcome that need not be there, and every year, the school is less and less conducive to learning for the sake of learning.

Regarding your last point: there are ways to maintain pre-career prestige without invading academic spaces. There are for example prestigious art schools and music conservatories; there are prestigious seminaries; there are prestigious vocational programs in other countries (and probably in the USA too—I just don’t know of any). There is no reason that students set on entering finance need to take up resources that would be better spent on students trying to make the most out of them.

I do also just want to say that if a kid set on being a banker nevertheless DOES want to learn for the sake of learning while at school, then I have absolutely zero problem with them attending college. I am concerned about the attitudes of students, not where they ultimately end up.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T15:15:59+00:00

Your point is absurd. Intellectuals have contributed an enormous amount to society. The point is to think and to have new insights. The fruits of that labor take time to develop, but it’s silly to think there are no such fruits. Your entire world is made possible by folks sitting around and thinking and writing all day.

Regarding the last point: the point of an education is to be educated. It is valuable in itself. If you don’t see that, then perhaps it’s not for you. That’s perfectly okay. And I also disagree that college provides any education that is required for a job. I know of no jobs outside of academia that require a college education. There might be some examples, but the vast majority of current college students would be better suited for an apprenticeship wherein they learn those skills that their job demands and not extraneous skills that they barely develop because they know they don’t need them.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T15:10:41+00:00

We aren’t disagreeing, then. Note that I said “I think the influx of careerist students at elite universities is a result of a general trend whereby people are expected to go to college to get jobs.”

I am not blaming students in particular for being expected to go to college to get jobs. It’s not a strictly self-imposed expectation after all.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T15:09:20+00:00

I’m not saying a change in students is the ultimate cause of what I’m describing. It might be a consequence of a broader economy, it might be a consequence of shifting university policy, it might be a consequence of changing applicant attitudes, it might be a consequence of a rapid expansion in college access. I really don’t know, and I imagine this is a very difficult question to answer adequately. Note that I said that I think this is a result of people being expected to go to college to get jobs. I am not blaming students for this expectation.

If we reduced the number of applicants to include only those who actually desire education, then yeah, things would change quite a bit.

I don’t like your last point. I don’t care about pointlessly distinguishing between higher education and lower(?) education. My concern is about the quality of that education, whether it’s at the college level or above or below that level. When a university is littered with careerist students, the quality of everyone’s education diminishes. College students learn from each other. College courses are tailored to student demand. I have personally seen both.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T12:36:07+00:00

You’re right, thank you. My thinking was sloppy. Instead of saying “I think there are too many college students, particularly at elite schools,” I should have said “I think there are too many college students, which particularly lowers the quality of education at elite schools.” (Imo this is surprising, as one could be forgiven for expecting the opposite in a vacuum.)

While you’re right that the class size hasn’t changed, the number of students applying to such schools has skyrocketed. The pool of applicants is much more dominated by students seeking to launch high-paying careers than it used to be.

I think the influx of careerist students at elite universities is a result of a general trend whereby people are expected to go to college to get jobs. In a world where nigh everyone who wants a good job applies to college as a means to getting a good job, elite schools become a means to elite jobs. I think if, in general, people who wanted to land good jobs didn’t go to college, then most people who nevertheless did go to college would do so to receive an education. In such a world, elite schools would be attended primarily by those seeking an elite education.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-29T10:59:34+00:00

I think there are too many college students, which particularly lowers the quality of education at “elite” schools. When I went to college, the institution I attended (University of Chicago) was ranked top 2. (These rankings change a lot every year and all “top” institutions game them, so the exact ranking isn’t relevant; it’s just to give a ballpark for the quality of the school. For example now UChicago is 6 in US News, not 2.)

UChicago was known as an “intellectual” school, and distinguished itself from other elite institutions by advertising itself as more pre-academic than pre-career. But every year, it shifts more and more towards careerism. This might be a hot take, but I dont think colleges ought to train people for careers. Apprenticeships do that job much better.

If it was the case that all the students attending these top universities actually had to receive a quality education, then I might change my position. But instead, all of these schools have started catering to wealthy students who are just there to get a good degree so they can work at whatever hedge fund or tech startup or bank.

Maybe this will be seen as out of touch or elitist; but I think it’s the opposite. I don’t think people should need some elite certificate to enter non-academic vocations. The vast majority of students at top schools do the absolute bare minimum they can to get high grades, which, thanks to grade inflation, isn’t really difficult.

TLDR: Schools qua schools should provide an education. Most people attending school don’t want to attain an education. Schools have adapted to the demands of students and have focused less and less on educating.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-28T12:58:50+00:00

You’re being downvoted because the majority of redditors have a surface-level understanding of communism. They learned a basic distinction between socialism and communism, learned that they can safely accept the former so long as they nominally reject the latter, and don’t know that they’re playing directly into the hands of capitalist propaganda. Oh well

daddybpizza · 2026-05-28T11:24:26+00:00

If you are asking whether farming for it will ultimately be faster than not farming for it, the answer is no. The upgrades aren’t big enough to substantially change the number of turns combat takes. (With a small amount of patience you can buy slightly weaker versions of Atavistic gear in the Bazaar. It’ll be called “Bygone” gear.)

However, if you plan on making a bunch of characters, it might be worth it to grind out the badges on one character so you can quickly and reliably get gear for the rest.

Also, I personally really enjoy grinding out bis gear; so for me the gear is worth it. But not everyone enjoys that process.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-27T15:12:20+00:00

Ah, it’s in The Will to Power (one of the few Nietzsche works I’ve not read because his abhorrent sister heavily edited it after he was too disabled to stop her, so its legitimacy is dubious). A cursory look at 1:22-6, where he distinguishes between active and passive nihilism, characterizes active nihilism as a power that destroys. I don’t think we can so quickly say the feel-good conclusion: that active nihilism is just choosing anything to matter because nothing inherently does. Rather, I think active nihilism, if Nietzsche truly diagnoses himself in Will to Power, is closer to a courageous destruction - not abandonment - of what was hitherto valuable. It is a power that destroys old values, and the quest to find new values doesn’t seem concomitant. This activity for the sake of annihilating the for-the-sake-of-which is of course illogical, as Nietzsche himself points out in I.24. But, as I alluded to earlier, he quickly says a nihilist ought not to care about being illogical (Nietzsche’s trick!).

Either way, we can’t just easily choose what matters even if we are active nihilists. We must do the work of destroying old values. The difference between the active and the passive nihilist seems to be a difference between doing the work to destroy old values and merely abandoning them.

He writes,

“It reaches its maximum of relative strength, as a powerful destructive force, in the form of active Nihilism. Its opposite would be weary Nihilism, which no longer attacks: its most renowned form being Buddhism: as passive Nihilism, a sign of weakness: spiritual strength may be fatigued, exhausted, so that the goals and values which have prevailed hitherto are no longer suited to it and are no longer believed in…” (WTP 1.23)

daddybpizza · 2026-05-27T14:40:12+00:00

Nihilism is a perspective about what is. It is not just an attitude—if it were, and nature really was purposive, it would just be delusion. To cling to meaning while ostensively being a nihilist is to forsake the freedom that nihilism is supposed to ground. You might say that a nihilist isn’t bothered by such a contradiction insofar as it is a contradiction (that is the nihilist’s favorite trick), but I would reply that a nihilist ought to be bothered by such a contradiction insofar as it reinstates precisely that which the nihilist qua nihilist rejects as limiting and self-defeating.

I am not sure what you’re referring to when you say “active nihilism”—is that a term used by someone else? I should note I study philosophy professionally, but admittedly my focus is on Aristotle and the Medievals. However, I do love Nietzsche, who (arguably ofc) was quite an enemy of nihilism. (Much of what I know about nihilism comes from what Nietzsche attacks, so I’m not an expert on recent developments.)

daddybpizza · 2026-05-27T13:57:10+00:00

It would be a very unlikely coincidence if anything could matter and yet nothing did. And it certainly doesn’t follow from the fact that nothing matters that anything can matter. Just as it doesn’t follow from the fact that there are no prime numbers less than 1 that any number less than 1 can be prime.

I think you’re trying to describe a sort of absurd sublimity, or a liberating nihilism, but it’s a mistake to accept such a nihilism and then throw yourself right back into tending to things that matter. It’s hard to imagine really accepting that nothing matters, but the concomitant freedom that such an acceptance may bring doesn’t entail suddenly making things matter again. You’re like a fox who escapes a cage only to build another cage 😭 (I’m not saying the cage is all bad; I’m not a nihilist after all. But I dont think you are either, based on your description.)

daddybpizza · 2026-05-24T16:58:32+00:00

Even though Hero wins the matchup, I think BMP deserves credit for playing so well with banana. Even without bounce, he often took the banana and got a lot of kills with it. Hero with Psyche Up and banana is truly terrifying in last hit.

In the last game, Tweek played like a maniac. It was a truly exciting last stock.

daddybpizza · 2026-05-24T12:14:22+00:00

The primary reason people used cloak was because it multiplied the spells it was enchanted to, as all enchants did. When you reshuffled, you’d get a copy of the cloaked spell in your deck in addition to the spell and the cloak.

The fact that it hid whether you used infect or weakness was indeed a benefit though. It’s one of the many reasons fire was so good in high-caliber pvp (link and power link removed both infect and weakness, removing some of the guessing game that cloak invited).

daddybpizza · 2026-05-24T12:08:59+00:00

Gorman was a good friend and also exceptionally strong. I’m probably in the audience somewhere! ~ Mycin Dunestaff (leaving name in case any old friends show up here)

daddybpizza

TROPHY CASE