<p>
</p>
<p>Forgive me if I take such posts with a certain amount of salt. Yes, there are a very, very few full-ride scholarships at UIUC. But only those that are privately funded, and not that many. The state has no money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But those aren’t “the local state university” for a student from Illinois.</p>
<p>"MiT isn’t an Ivy and it depends on how much that guy’s family made. "</p>
<h2>His parents are upper middle class. Due to his test scores and high school class rank, he went free to our state school</h2>
<p>An upper-middle-class kid whose parents can pay for an Ivy won’t be getting a free ride to one. But state schools that want to attract such kids do set aside funds, private or other, for a number of instate and out-of-state scholarships like the one Bill73 was talking about–regardless of the family’s income. For lower-income families, there’s no question that well-funded privates can be a better choice, and thus should not be ruled out.</p>
<p>“Forgive me if I take such posts with a certain amount of salt. Yes, there are a very, very few full-ride scholarships at UIUC. But only those that are privately funded, and not that many. The state has no money.”</p>
<p>That’s true. That’s cool that the individual you discussed is attending college for free, but I would imagine that a very small % of Ivy league admits are considered low-income and would actually qualify for that type of tuition discount.</p>
<p>Even in the relatively less populated part of Illinois in which I live, the people that I know that got into Harvard had parents with incomes well over $150k.</p>
<p>65% of all harvard students got their full need met</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> University | Best College | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/harvard-university-2155]Harvard”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/harvard-university-2155)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think he’s going for free; his mom told me they were paying less at Harvard than they would have at UIUC (where he was also admitted). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly the percentage of low-income students at Harvard is going to be very low. AFAIK, this kid is the first from his school in many years to go to Harvard. I know everyone (especially the student, who had been admitted early action to UIUC and was telling people that was where he was going) was very surprised when the big envelope arrived. Nice kid, obviously very accomplished academically, but no big standout EC achievements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>School … Cost after Average Need-based Aid
Penn State … $20,333
MIT… $18,053
Stanford … $16,868
Rutgers … $15,629
Princeton … $15,550
UCLA … $15,397
Umass-Amherst … $15,246
Yale… $14,786
Harvard … $14,496
Connecticut … $14,403
(Source: Kiplinger)</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> Financial Aid Office](<a href=“http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do]Harvard”>http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do)
“We invite you to explore our web site for a detailed description of all aspects of our aid program, including our Harvard Financial Aid Initiative for low and moderate income students, under which families with incomes currently below $60,000 are not expected to contribute to college costs. Beginning in the fall of 2012, financial aid will be further expanded for low income students, when this income level will be increased to $65,000.”
[YALE</a> FOLLOWS HARVARD IN SWEEPING FINANCIAL-AID REFORM TARGETING MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES | Yale Daily News](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2008/jan/15/yale-follows-harvard-in-sweeping-financial-aid/]YALE”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2008/jan/15/yale-follows-harvard-in-sweeping-financial-aid/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A summary of “Academically Adrift” findings is available:
<a href=“http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/images/crm/new_publication_3/{d06178be-3823-e011-adef-001cc477ec84}.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/images/crm/new_publication_3/{d06178be-3823-e011-adef-001cc477ec84}.pdf</a></p>
<p>Excerpts <a href=“poster’s%20excerpts%20have%20been%20additionally%20edited%20by%20a%20Moderator”>i</a>*</p>
<p>“… educational practices associated with academic rigor improved student performance, while collegiate experiences associated with social engagement did not.”</p>
<p>"Students attending certain institutions… demonstrate significantly higher gains … even after we control for students individual characteristics. "</p>
<p>"… We focused on one institutional variable that past sociological research has shown can have a strong relationship to learning: peer composition…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve heard that many of the Ivy’s are not that challenging academically and the hard bit is getting admitted. Many of the students don’t major in the harder subjects, like engineering, because it would take away from their party time. I think Yale has only about 5% in engineering for example and, other than Cornell, the percentage is similar at others Ivies.</p>
<p>In terms of Bain and their ilk, they hire only a few people and a typical career at one of these firms only last 2 years anyway.</p>
<p>"And there’s nothing wrong with that. As PizzaGirl said, prestigious colleges are luxury goods, and for those with the disposable income to spend on. luxury goods, why not? Just don’t delude yourself (or others) that you’re buying anything except prestige. "</p>
<p>Your conclusion doesn’t hold water. An elite college may indeed be a luxury good – and it may also be better. A Piaget is a luxury good compared to a Swatch - and it’s a higher quality watch. A BMW is a luxury good compared to a Yugo - and it’s higher quality too. You may decide you just want a watch to tell you the time or a car to move you from point A to point B, but that doesn’t mean all cars and watches are the same. </p>
<p>I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to acknowledge that some things you can’t or don’t have may indeed be better thn what you can or do have. My nephew went to a pricey, elite private hs in Chicago, whereas my kids went to nice-but-not-New-Trier public school. Was it a luxury good? Yes. Was I willing to spend $25k on it for my kids? No. But that didn’t mean that I couldn’t acknowledge that it WAS a better school - more rigorous academics, wider range of classes, far more opportunities in many aspects. I didn’t value those things enough to spend that kind of money and invest the time in driving them everyday, but that doesn’t mean the benefits and advantages weren’t there. I also chose to be happy for my nephew’s good fortune to attend such a school, versus cover resentment in a manufactured “well, it must not be any better and the kids are probably all rich snobs anyway” posture. Try it sometime.</p>
<p>Once again, we have a failure to cover all the logical bases. Ever heard of syllogisms? </p>
<p>Just because something MAY BE more than just a luxury good does not mean something IS more than a luxury good. </p>
<p>See the difference? </p>
<p>If it WAS more than a luxury good, would you not think that 30+ years of scholarly research designed to determine whether there is an educational advantage to attending a high-prestige college would have uncovered some evidence that there is such an advantage? </p>
<p>You know, the research that you apparently can’t refute but over and over again try to obfuscate with your fallacy-rich ad hominem arguments?</p>
<p>Luxury goods come with lots of different messages. Sometimes it’s a matter of prestige. For me, Swatch and Piaget watches would fall into that category, because all I’d care about is if the thing keeps accurate time. BMW and Yugo (can you even buy one of those anymore in the US new?) cars convey a different message to me. I’m the type who regards a car as a way to get from A to B, but even I get why someone would want to pay more money for the BMW: more reliable, safer, better performance, pleasanter ride (quieter, more comfortable), more fun driving experience. Of course it can also be a big prestige statement…but it’s all those other things, too. </p>
<p>If Consumer Reports only judged cars based on minimizing the dollars spent in getting from point A to point B, the Yugo might well come out on top of the BMW. You can eat reasonably healthily and spend a lot less money at Souplantation than at the French Laundry or Chez Panisse. And so forth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There IS abundant, prima facie evidence of such an advantage. The burden of proof is on the scholarly research to show that higher graduate school admission rates, better starting and mid-career salaries, and other positive outcomes, apparently associated with attending more selective schools, are in fact attributable to something other than the treatment effects of attending those schools. When thousands of the best students (the students with the most freedom of choice every spring) choose Ivies over less expensive, less selective alternatives, the burden of proof is on the scholarly research to show that this is irrational behavior. </p>
<p>Many people persist in denying phenomena such as evolution or global warming despite abundant evidence from diverse sources. Something like that may be going on here. However, I don’t think the evidence in this case is nearly so clear-cut. I also don’t think the claims made by some of these researchers are as sweeping and strong as annasdad seems to be characterizing them.</p>
<p>Academically, it’s all the same *<strong><em>. I’ve watched the lectures from MIT, Stanford, UIUC, Berkeley, etc. And I’m learning the exact same thing they are. The exact same way too. At the undergraduate level, it’s all a finite amount of knowledge being taught. It’s not like Harvard has exclusive secrets to Taylor Series or the Monte Carlo method. All the top 100 or so universities are teaching the same *</em></strong>. </p>
<p>The only real advantage of some universities are networking and research opportunities. And some ivys don’t even have that going for them compared to research oriented state schools like UCB, Michigan, or Illinois. </p>
<p>So no. All the boohooing over ivies isn’t worth it.</p>
<p>tselliott, I think you’re overlooking the discussion here and the cited research that indicates what really makes a difference in learning effects. It’s not watching lectures. It apparently is related to “engagement” and rigor (smaller classes, more discussion, heavier reading loads, more writing assignments, etc.)</p>
<p>Data rather clearly shows that 7 of the 8 Ivies have smaller average class sizes than virtually any public research university (but not necessarily the very smallest averages compared to LACs and a couple of other private research universities.) What the data does NOT tell us is how the Ivies compare in reading loads, writing assignments, engagement with professors, etc. (the kinds of factors called out by the NSSE assessments, which are not available for the Ivies). </p>
<p>However, for virtually every metric I’ve seen (selectivity, endowment per student, faculty salary, faculty awards, graduate admissions, alumni awards, need-based aid, etc. etc.) the Ivies are at or near the very top. It may be true that none of these factors have a clear, direct correlation with learning effects (after controlling for student ability). However, I think it unlikely that if we measured them for the factors that DO matter, these schools would do poorly. They might not do well enough to justify a big cost premium; but, for many students, either there isn’t a big price premium (after aid), or their families are wealthy enough that it does not matter. </p>
<p>So, faced with incomplete information, and if costs were not a big issue, which would you choose? Harvard or UMass-Amherst? Yale or UConn? Princeton or Rutgers? The cross-admit data shows clear, strong preferences for the Ivies over virtually any other schools (except, in a few cases, over other highly selective institutions.)</p>
<p>It really reminds me of the “accelerated track” in public middle & high schools. I didn’t realize it until my kids were that age, but parents push for their “borderline kids” to “be accelerated” not so much for the academics, but rather for WHO they will be in classes with. Same thing with sports teams, parents are deathly afraid of their kid getting cut because they know it will dictate who they will interact with the most during that sports season. Parents reason that who their child spends time with is very influential & thus they want them around kids who are serious students, are focused on positive extra curriculars, etc. Now I realize that students values, work habits, etc. are much more formed by the time they go to college, but doesn’t it make sense that parents want their children to be around the most accomplished peers they can, sensing that this will only bring out the best in them? I don’t have “studies” to show the affect, just an observation of parent’s “intuition” .</p>
<p>How many logical fallacies can you pack into a single CC post?</p>
<p>Let’s return to the original question in this thread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So let’s reframe that slightly:</p>
<p>“Will these schools provide superior education or post-grad prospects for an individual student?</p>
<p>Now you can argue that’s not what the thread is about. But that’s the question all my posts have addressed. And, I would argue, for a student or parent making a college decision, it is the operative one. So I’m going to reframe again: </p>
<p>“For me (or my child) will a high-prestige college provide superior education or post-grad prospects, compared to a less-selective one?”</p>
<p>If you want to argue a different question, fine. But that’s the one I’ve argued, consistently.</p>
<p>And my argument is, and has been, that 30+ years of scholarly research, looking for evidence that the proposition is true (i.e., there is an advantage) has found there is no evidence attributable to prestige or selectivity that the education is better, and very limited evidence that the post-grad prospects are better.</p>
<p>Now let’s turn to tk21769’s post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the fallacy of onus probandi, or less formally, “shifting the burden of proof.” When one makes an assertion (such as, “these schools provide an advantage for an individual student”), the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. Your post attempts to shift that burden to those who have looked for the evidence that it is true and found none, saying in effect, “Oh because you haven’t found that it is true, because you haven’t found that it isn’t true must mean that it is true.” That’s the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, which asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, because it is “generally accepted.”</p>
<p>This also commits the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi – making an argument that may in itself be valid, but that does not address the issue in question. The question is not “do graduates of more selective schools, on average, have the better salaries and grad school admission rates?” Yes, they do. Admitted. Abundant evidence. Not disputed. But that’s not the question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Argumentum ad populum, when a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be so. Lots of people believe a lot of things for which there is no objective evidence. Most religious beliefs, for example. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Straw man fallacy – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. Annasdad has consistently quoted the sources directly (within the limits of the CC TOS), and when others have attempted to broaden those claims, annasdad has corrected them. The most recent example, as it happens on this thread, is at <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14604695-post302.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/14604695-post302.html</a>.</p>
<p>
[quote=tk21769]
So, faced with incomplete information, and if costs were not a big issue, which would you choose?<a href=“emphasis%20added”>/quote</a></p>
<p>If costs are not a big issue, then I would advise my child to choose the school where he or she would feel most comfortable. </p>
<p>One key question is, will my child be happier as one of the brightest kids on campus, or merely as one of a group of equally bright kids (some of whom will be brighter)? Paul Allen, in his reminiscences, says that Bill Gates was taken aback when he got to Harvard and found out that as smart as he was, there were kids who were smarter. Allen says Gates’ math ability was 1-in-100,000, whereas he was competing at Harvard with 1-in-a-million kids. For a competitive personality like Gates, that was a major deflator (he seems to have overcome it and done all right in subsequent endeavors, however :)).</p>
<p>Another key question would be, how aggressive will my kid be in seeking out the learning opportunities that abound on every campus? If I had a very bright kid who slid through high school on his or her smarts, never really engaging anything intellectually, I might opt for the more-selective college, because there is anecdotal evidence that those kinds of kids get passes at those colleges that they wouldn’t get at less-selective places.</p>
<p>“Another key question would be, how aggressive will my kid be in seeking out the learning opportunities that abound on every campus? If I had a very bright kid who slid through high school on his or her smarts, never really engaging anything intellectually, I might opt for the more-selective college, because there is anecdotal evidence that those kinds of kids get passes at those colleges that they wouldn’t get at less-selective places.”</p>
<p>…explain</p>
<p>Taking someone’s comment and twisting it to create one’s own question to then answer is creative. Anyone can talk about what may work for any <em>one</em> person. N of 1 studies may be interesting but not very useful when trying to make a group decision or response to a hypothesis. So sure, drone on ond on and on about what may work for “an individual student”, but allow others to decide what is best for their individual student. And don’t chide others for providing anecdotal evidence when then choosing to do the same.</p>