<p>I agree with hmom. "Fit" is a murky issue and a mature student should be able to adapt to a wide variety of schools. The career benefits of attending prestigious schools, however, are anything but murky.</p>
<p>Where do you get wealth production? If I want to be a philosophy professor, a banker or the head of a non profit, there is an equal need to choose an education that can best get you there.</p>
<p>Namurt (I was impressed to learn you are a young person), again, is correct. The idea of 'best fit' is an upper class creation. The vast majority of college goers go to their nearest state school.</p>
<p>At the heart of my argument is that the child centered parents who created this concept, me and my peers, have gone too far. When it gets to the point where kids think they can be happy at only a few schools, we've clearly done something wrong. And when CC is full of posts centered on what the food and gym are like at college X, we've certainly let our kid's lose focus on what's important. Even if they feel they can only be happy at a school with an open curriculum, something at least academics related, IMO it's over the top.</p>
<p>Most are overly critical of the stereotypical prestige seeking Asian parent while seeing nothing wrong with the parent who does a 38 college tour in search of the perfect aura with the best dorm and private bathrooms.</p>
<p>I consider this akin to believing there's only one person on earth you're meant to be with. Sure everyone should choose a person and an institution that meets their needs, but the fact is there are many that will.</p>
<p>hmom-- you're taking the fit argument to the utmost extreme that most people are not envisioning. CC is full of morons, but that doesn't mean there is a grain of truth to fit. While the Open Curriculum was central for me, it was not even a characteristic the four schools I applied to shared (and I would have been happy at any of them, just different) despite the fact that there are well more than four schools with that characteristic. Don't take my statements to the utmost extreme and I won't take yours to the extreme.</p>
<p>Fit is not an upper class creation, focusing on dorms and food is an upper class creation. But student amenities does not a fit make for most seekers. It wasn't even a factor for me. If it was, I'd definitely have ended up at my second choice school over Brown.</p>
<p>
<p>Stake out a goal for education, go wherever the structures are in place to best help you reach those goals. Hmom, I think, is setting all of those goals as being practical, and more directly, wealth production essentially. I personally have a far broader view for the purpose of my education, one that my parents looked at in great fear when I first got to school (considering neither had a four year degree and we're very much middle class and college has been a financial burden). Now we both generally are very happy with my feelings/interpretation of education and feel I've been best served in the system I chose. My sister is somewhere very different and she's having an equally valuable, if wholly different, experience. Neither of us could have gotten what the other wanted/needed at each other's institution.
I know you have good intentions; but, you come off as being extremely spoiled. Your parents are paying for your 4 years of college with their hard-earned money so you can utilize all the resources and strengthen your career options, not so you can "maximize" your happiness. </p>
<p>I agree with hmom that this "perfect fit" business is complete BS. In fact, it's the reason the American economy is going down the drain. You should go to a college because it will increase your earning potential, not because the campus is pretty. While entitled Americans are worrying about superficial things to help decide where they want to go to college, immigrants and people in foreign nations are actually focusing on the things that matter and producing results despite the circumstances.</p>
<p>How happy do you think the average middle-class Chinese worker is compared to the average middle-class American? Probably not even close to being as happy, but he is definitely a lot more efficient. Americans have become programmed to avoid the harsh truths at an early and embraced this system of "rewarding effort".</p>
<p>So, you probably thought you were special when you received a "participation certificate" when you went to a sporting event or took a math competition in middle school. Then, you were probably satisfied when you put forth mediocre effort in your high school classes and got decent grades. Then, you probably had your entire family pat you on the back when you scored in the 95th percentile of the SAT/ACTs. Then, your entire community was probably proud of you when you got admitted to Brown, an "Ivy League" college.</p>
<p>Now, you graduated and probably enjoyed the liberal academic policies of the institution and have like a dozen Pass/Fails on your transcript from a bunch of fluff humanities courses. In the past, you would have probably been picked up by Goldman Sachs because GASP "you are something special" after all. That's when you realize "oh man", I really don't know anything. It's because of people like you who look good on paper but have no real skills that have destroyed the American economy.</p>
<p>What have you really accomplished though? All the praise you have received in your life is a complete fluke. What skills do you possess now that can positively impact the American economy? I bet a homeschooled kid in China is just as skilled and qualified as you and he didn't have to spend $200k.</p>
<p>My cousin, who is on the verge of a giant medical breakthrough, was raised differently. When he got a 1590 on the SAT, his parents didn't invite the whole city and celebrate his achievement. They looked him in the eye and asked, "Why didn't you get a 1600?". When, he was admitted to Princeton, his parents didn't congratulate him and hug him uncontrollably, they asked him, "Why didn't you get into Harvard?". When he got a research article published in the best scientific magazine, his parents finally said "Congratulations son, you've made us proud".</p>
<p>If more kids were raised like my cousin, then this country wouldn't be in shambles. It's people like the posters in this thread who believe life is all about "maximizing happiness" instead of actual utility to society that have set the country down the wrong path. Too much positive reinforcement has instilled a sense of complacency and high self esteem in Americans.</p>
<p>Anyone who chooses Brown over Stanford should be slapped across the face. There are people who are getting laid off left and right in America and are about to have their homes foreclosed and you want to turn away the opportunities in front of your face for some selfish reason like "happiness"? Shame on you.</p>
<p>ring<em>of</em>fire's post is absolutely hilarious and presumptuous. You don't know me, what I'm doing, why I'm doing it, my parents situation, or my own.</p>
<p>I'm glad you think I picked Brown because the campus is pretty (not even 1/3 as nice as Stanford, IMO), I hope that makes you feel better about whatever is upsetting you. I'm glad you think you can gain insight into my entire character and work ethic based upon the fact that I don't view education as a commodity. I was raised with different values and I know very well that some of the most important, meaningful, and rewarding things in life don't come with a larger check attached. I'm sorry you feel that happiness is mutually exclusive to career opportunities, that Brown and Stanford are tremendously different and there is a clear difference for all students, etc, etc.</p>
<p>Honestly, I probably shouldn't have even written this post, your comments are damaging enough that I don't really need to respond.</p>
<p>^Oh please, I obviously don't know you but I was alluding to the entitled tone you employed in your previous post to generally bash this current generation of Americans.</p>
<p>Why do you feel sorry for me that I feel that happiness and career opportunities aren't mutually exclusive? I feel sorry for you since you believe the real world is some sort of Cinderella fantasy. Luckily, your parents are most likely very wealthy and you can mooch of their trust fund to your hearts desire and worry about maximizing your "personal happiness".</p>
<p>My comments are only damaging because you have been so corrupted by the mentality that "personal fit" is more important when making decisions than considering the marginal benefit to society and quality of life for your future family.</p>
<p>ring<em>of</em>fire: Your post reflects an impression of the American educational system and its goals that is not only fundamentally incorrect, but incredibly damaging to everything it stands for. You are the one who is causing the American system to go down the drain.</p>
<p>Since their very beginnings, the idea of the American colleges has been to educate. Stanford is not a vocational school. Brown is not a vocational school. The goal of these schools has never been to allow people to earn money; this is an incidental effect of the fact that they provide a good education. The goal of these schools is to shape the people who come through their doors not just into people who can make tons of money, but who can actually do something useful with it.</p>
<p>The idea that the only use of college is turning out money-makers is precisely the problem with America right now, because it encourages the sort of culture of greed and excess that has led to this economic crisis. No-one's goal should be to gain a ton of money for money's sake; their goal should always be to make their life enjoyable, fulfilled, to contribute to their society not just as businessmen but as citizens. But as long as twats as you prattle on like this, we're only going to see more of the same thing.</p>
<p>ring<em>of</em>fire apparently missed the part where I talked about paying for college has been a financial burden. I'm only able to afford Brown due to my aid package. I'm quite happy I'll be going into a field where I will hopefully be changing the world and making it a better place for many people, even if I'll be paid less than someone who decided to go down many other paths.</p>
<p>I don't think the real world is a Cinderella fantasy, I just have different goals than you do. For me, making $200,000 a year doing something I hate and that I view as meaningless is a lot worse a fate than making $65,000 a year (still not bad if you ask me) and waking each morning anxious to go to work and make a difference.</p>
<p>You don't know how hard I did or didn't work, what I could or couldn't do, what I did or will do. So stop being obnoxious because I went to school to get an education which has improved myself and therefore has improved my ability to be a productive (not in an economic sense necessarily) member of society. It's not all about making money; in fact, I value civic engagement more than I value economic gain, personally.</p>
<p>Historically, my view is far closer to what the university has intended to be since around the 12th century when the first modern universities were founded in Italy. Things have changed a lot in 100 years, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of it or feel that all of it was good for everyone. In fact, I think many schools are not as good as they could be and not doing as well by their students as they could be because they've lost site of their core missions around which the entire structure was built.</p>
<p>I agree with hmom5. I am born into a neighborhood where getting a car that costs six figures for your sixteenth birthday isn't a big deal (hopefully not me, I try to understand that the world, well...). </p>
<p>All the parents lounging and tanning at the soccer games talk about it as a world filled with butterflies, "Yeah... Lucy Loo wanted to go to XXX univ, the dorms there are so crappy...". </p>
<p>There are two paths you can take, both of which must be based on PRACTICAL outcome as opposed to your doorknob quality.</p>
<p>A) Outcome in 20 years (Prestige)
B) Debt incurred in 20 years (State)</p>
<p>Those are both things that must be taken into consideration. The days in which Harvard gives aid to everyone and their cousin's grocer are over. Reality will settle in.</p>
<p>My Dad keeps telling me that I will do best wherever as long as I have the "fire in my belly", currently it is 40k private vs. free public high school. For the most part this is true, but no one is going to recruit you from some random university. </p>
<p>If you have the money and the luck to go to Harvard/Ivy I think it is an oppertunity too good to pass up for doorknob styles, but in this economy (I KNOW AMERICA.... SURPRISE!) we need to put the entitlement crap behind us and do something practical.</p>
<p>modestmelody I think you will have to put the "happy" crap behind and face reality, if you can make 200k over 65k you have to. You are behooved to do it, as a member of you family which you must support. </p>
<p>Unfortunately you will see that as the days go on low becomes 40k, then 50k, and before you know it 120k is too low.</p>
<p>id say depends on ur major. If you are going into a field that requires prestige, then do that.</p>
<p>Uhh. I think prestige is uniform among majors. If you get a PhD in history from a top university it will be more likely Harvard will ask you to be on tenure path (yes, that's financial security), whereas University of XXX will have to work his @$$ off. </p>
<p>Scientist, whatever. Every profession which requires a BA also will benefit from more prestige.</p>
<p>My family never made over 6 figures combined income and I was raised just fine, loved my life, and worry for nothing despite living in one of the most expensive areas in the country. If I have the same buying power my parents had throughout my life I will be more than happy. Not everyone needs money and things to be happy, nor does everyone become happier as you have more money and things.</p>
<p>My family needs a roof, food, health insurance, and opportunity-- money provides the first three, character and ability largely provides the fourth. I don't need 200k to make that a reality. If I improve the lives of people outside of my nuclear family, that's worth a lot more to me than being able to get my daughter Gucci sunglasses and my son a Gibson Historic Les Paul.</p>
<p>I agree with that sentiment, and I want to live my life with just such passion. Remember, the economy isn't nice anymore.</p>
<p>One of the best threads I've read while lurking on CC these past few months. Hmom has excellent insight into where we have all wound up. As for making $200K in an unrewarding job vs. $65K in one you truly enjoy you need to consider that the extra cash may put you in the position to better provide for a family and to pay that $50K a year to put the child you dearly love through a school that may help her for a lifetime,and that may be the greatest reward.</p>
<p>This discussion is getting a bit more heated than initially intended... please, don't slit each other's throats :P</p>
<p>Im really enjoying all of this input - its almost fascinating to see how two or three people cna view one situation in so many different lights. Thank you so much everyone that has already posted - if you ever need help or input with anything, feel free to message me!</p>
<p>popcorn anyone?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I agree with hmom that this "perfect fit" business is complete BS. In fact, it's the reason the American economy is going down the drain. You should go to a college because it will increase your earning potential, not because the campus is pretty. While entitled Americans are worrying about superficial things to help decide where they want to go to college, immigrants and people in foreign nations are actually focusing on the things that matter and producing results despite the circumstances."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I say why not have both? I would in a heartbeat reject a school if the campus is ugly if there are other equal schools that i could attend to reach my end goals. I am blessed to be a science inclined student so my view of education is a little different from the liberal arts type. I want an education that allows me to understand things better, not think about things better so that I can eventually embark upon a research career.
Since my goal is a PhD or some other graduate program undergrad for me was about two things: 1)No debt, and 2) Research opportunities. So my college list included only the top colleges that I could actually afford if I got in and my state U that I love. </p>
<p>My parents and family are middle class and I am one of the main proponents of an ends based education, but for some that is not what THEY want, and it is thier choice.</p>
<p>Alright, I like this idea - Im going to make a list of what I want from my udnergraduate experience, then use the list to look at the colleges and what they offer hollistically, and try to come to a decision in this manner.</p>
<p>I was thinking about this earlier...</p>
<p>Does it really matter where you get an undergrad education if you are not planning on specializing (nursing, teaching, engineering, business, etc.)? So far I have been accepted to a few highly ranked colleges (not ivies; I'm good but I'm not that good lol :p) and a few lesser rated, average colleges. As may be predicted, the lower ranked colleges have offered me more merit money and it is difficult to ignore the costs. The difference is as much as $15k-$20k per year and $45k-$50k per year. I am thinking seriously of going to one of my lower rated schools where I could a) save a ton of cash and b) do well and earn good grades for applying to graduate school. Do graduate schools (maybe med school or law school) really care where students had their undergrad education as long as they performed well in the setting? If I am satisfied with wherever I go and it won't hurt me in the long run for grad school and a career, then I am all up for taking the cheaper option :p. I don't need fancy bells and whistles. Thanks for any help or answers. ;)</p>
<p>Butter for me JD!</p>
<p>My own kids have ended up at aesthetically pleasing schools with every resource, schools that they love. Well, the oldest goes to MIT which he finds aesthetically pleasing. But what makes me happy is they are at schools that let them keep all options open.</p>
<p>It was important for DH and I to make sure they understood some realities. DS1 for example, wanted to live in NYC and be an engineer. During his junior year he figured out what living on an engineer's salary in NYC would entail. So he was able to retool and chose a graduate program that would position him for a different set of jobs using his engineering background. Many of his friends did not think through pay scales and lifestyles and are less than happy where they are right now. They want to go back to school but many now have fixed expenses hard to leave behind.</p>
<p>DS2 has known what he wanted to do since he was 5. There are about 10 schools that would give him a good shot at his career goal. He would have been happy at any of them.</p>
<p>As we are footing the bill for all three at $50K/yr schools, we felt it was reasonable to expect them to go into college with eyes wide open. DD thought she wanted to major in philosophy and be a prof. Great! But we wanted her to understand realities such as it's hard to chose where you live if that's your goal. We found 2 philosophy profs, she spent a day with each and decided it wasn't for her. One down, 50,000 things to explore. But she is exploring with a practical eye towards balancing her career goals with her lifestyle goals.</p>
<p>My kids have grown up with a lot of privileges. They have 2 parents who have jobs that are hard to get if you didn't attend one of a handful of schools. I think it would be tough for my kids to end up in jobs that pay little. Their standard is the best private K-12 schools and I wonder how they'd feel about giving their kids less. They love to travel internationally and eat great food. If a low paying job turns them on, more power to them. We would support anything. But let's face it, many kids today make it through college without a practical thought in their head. They are focused on the next 4 years rather than the 70 after that. A big, big mistake IMO.</p>