College Enrollment....Real Objective

Parents Forum
1

<p>I am the parent of a 10th grader and recently became aware of this web site. My reading of the various comments has added further stimulation to a subject that I had previously thought a lot about. As one might expect within the parents' forum, many of the posting parents write as it pertains to their own children. As to my child, perhaps I'll save those particulars for another post.</p>

<p>The transition from high school to college is certainly an exciting one and with it comes a number of experiences along the way. Much of what I have read though appears to almost be the sense of urgency or strong desire that many seem to long for as to it pertains to their own child's collegiate destination. More specifically, there seems to be a high preference of many parents to see their children attend one of the so called most selective National Universities or Liberal Arts schools in the country. </p>

<p>Absent those students receiving close to, if not all, of their tuition and expenses satisfied through scholarships, grants, etc. (which I suspect is a minority of the college population; after all, colleges are businesses that rely on tuition payments to remain in business), how "necessary" is it for a child to attend one of these targeted elite colleges in the country? I ask because if a student is truly motivated to do well in college (no matter where they attend), they not only will but will ultimately obtain a position in some career field where they will likely flourish. This also includes high school graduates with less than the highest GPA's, SAT's and extra-curriculum lists who may not attend the top schools.</p>

<p>In the case of the top public colleges (which are generally ranked just beneath the top privates), an in-state student will probably obtain as affordable of a college education as possible. However, even in the case of the lesser ranked publics (or even some of the lesser ranked privates who charge substantially less than the top privates), there are countless examples of graduating students from these institutions who committed themselves into doing well and are now thriving in their respective vocations. Some are even leaders in their respective field and are accoutable, in some instances, for graduate hires from the top schools. The only difference is that the education by the graduates from the lesser ranked schools was at a fraction of the cost of the top schools.</p>

<p>Certainly there are families that, if necessary, can fund a 4-year undergraduate education at (for example) a top private costing close to 200K but even for them, to save most of that money (or the debt attached to it) while also seeing their child obtain a choice job in the future would seem to be the "real objective" at the end of the day. Beyond that, while many graduating students from the top institutions do excel in their careers, there are still many that have not despite having attended these choice institutions.</p>

<p>There are, I'm sure, different opinions on this but it would be interesting to hear what some of them are.</p>

2

<p>"Absent those students receiving close to, if not all, of their tuition and expenses satisfied through scholarships, grants, etc. (which I suspect is a minority of the college population; after all, colleges are businesses that rely on tuition payments to remain in business), how "necessary" is it for a child to attend one of these targeted elite colleges in the country?"</p>

<p>Not necessary at all. Most successful people have not attended these schools and most people haven't heard of many of these elite colleges.</p>

3

<p>this has been argued many times before, with many people very vehemently in one camp or the other. </p>

<p>I'm very much in the "it doesn't really matter" group</p>

<p>The best that I can come up with is that a lot of it depends on the student, as well as what their future career might be. Some students need the competitive environment to really get all they can out of college, others prefer to be the big fish (academically) in the small pond. Others need small environments b/c they'll otherwise get lost in the shuffle, while others enjoy being able to pick and choose where and when they'll stand out, and still another group which enjoy the anonymity of a huge school.</p>

<p>Similarly, there are some fields where going to a top school absolutely matters (investment banking being perhaps the best example) b/c firms only recruit from certain schools. In other areas, or for those hoping to go onto professional school (med school is a good example) the prestige of a school is not particularly relevant but finding the best fit is of supreme importance. And in still other areas, (teaching) job options are largely dependent on geography.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, this message board is predominantly obsessed with high prestige, high cost schools with small class sizes. There is also a preponderance of Northeast bias.</p>

4

<p>dovetron, </p>

<p>First, welcome. Always glad to see new people. </p>

<p>Second, I respectfully disagree with you that the vast majority of parents are of the opinion that acceptance to an elite national university/LAC is the absolute goal. In essence, I think that you're preaching to the choir -- the list of acceptances and the thread showing the sincere celebration of those acceptances show that for <em>most</em> CC parents the goal is to find schools that are the best choices for their kids -- in all selectivity categories, safety match or reach. In particular, the parents here are passionate (to use an overused CC term) about finding and sharing information about those schools that may be less selective but offer outstanding value (financially and academically). I know that the board has been invaluable in helping me find schools to investigate further. Some were dead ends, but many were wonderful finds. </p>

<p>Again, welcome, and I look forward to hearing about your child's quest to find the best fit.</p>

5

<p>This was my first post on the forum close to a couple of years ago: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=41343%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=41343&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>My daughter is now at an Ivy and I believe it was the right choice * for her*. However, I still don't think there's any right or wrong answer to the question. It depends on your child, your family's circumstances and a lot of other factors. Best wishes on the journey ahead!</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
The only difference is that the education by the graduates from the lesser ranked schools was at a fraction of the cost of the top schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Others have responded, as I would, that students can have a good college experience, a good education, and a rewarding life without necessarily going to HYP. Absolutely true. I don't agree, though, that the "only difference" between schools is cost. I have four kids, three of whom have attended first-tier schools (one Ivy, two top-flight LACs). Their undergrad educations were expensive, but fortunately we qualified for enough need-based financial aid to get them through. Two of the three had/are having incredible intellectual and social experiences in their first-choice college (the Ivy kid did fine but wasn't happy in the culture). The LACs offered small classes with top-notch professors and smart motivated classmates. The facilities, from the science labs to the dining halls, were the best available. So why, if a kid qualifies for a first-tier college, would you encourage him/her to attend a lesser school? I know what a poor college is like -- I went to one for a while -- and it's not a good experience; the profs are overworked, underpaid, and resentful -- and often not the creme de la creme to begin with. Classes are overcrowded. Dorms are overcrowded. There aren't enough scopes to go 'round. Tests are multiple-choice machine-read affairs with little room for intellectual expression. Classroom discussion is stilted and banal.</p>

<p>It's all about match. If your child is motivated to learn for learning's sake, find a college that supports that. And no, it won't be cheap.</p>

7

<p>Everyone has their criteria but in general, one of the most attractive things about rigorous private primary, secondary and tertiary education is the peer group. The top private schools screen for the future leaders of the world--and they get them in spades. Yes, your child can become a world leader/innovator without a top private school education. His/her chances of meeting and befriending future world leaders/innovators increases exponentially at top colleges.</p>

<p>Also, (please forgive the characterization) academia is a snobby snobby place. Reknowned scholars want to teach at top universities in top locations. Reknowned scholars are not falling over themselves to teach in Manhattan, Kansas. Reknowned architects are not flying out of New York to teach at UT--unless it is for a short week long seminar. Sorry, but they are not. The chances of your child meeting a reknowned scholar go up exponentially at a top university.</p>

<p>Finally, not everyone paying full frieght is 'buying' their child a career. A single data point does not make a statistic but I know at least a few families who want their children to have broad educations. They don't believe their 18 year olds have fully developed intellects. They would like that development to be inspired by some of the leading intellectuals in the world.</p>

<p>Some families believe the career is secondary at 18 and is better addressed in graduate school.</p>

8

<p>Cheers, not to pick nits, but a "reknowned scholar" doesn't always translate into a "reknowned teacher." And, of course, it's entirely possible to get a "broad education" and a "fully developed intellect" beyond "elite" schools.
:)</p>

<p>My personal take is that if your child attends what I call a "decal school" - a school where your friends and neighbors recognize the name on your car - it's a nice bonus, but it shouldn't be the START of the college search. The start should lie with your child's individual needs -- what type of learning environment will he/she need to excell, what type of social environment, and, of course, is his/her admissions profile a realistic fit for the most selective schools?</p>

<p>In other words, it's not really about the decal; it's about finding the places where your child can thrive. For some, it <em>may</em> turn out to be an elite school; for others, it <em>may</em> turn out to be a school that has little decal value but does have great educational value. But, if you start - and end - with the needs/desires of the individual child, then the chances that they'll get the most out of their education will be greatest. The decal is just a bonus, not the whole ball of wax.</p>

9

<p>I differ with Cheers' perspective concerning the befriending of future world leaders & innovators at Ivy League colleges. The "future" part is mostly comes from the past -- these are often the children already wealthy and influential families. But the opportunity to meet these students or share living and dining quarters does not necessarily translate into friendship. My kids (who grew up in working class community and attended public schools) have both attended private colleges where there also are many children of wealth & privilege, and they have found that there is a sense of disconnection that makes it difficult to form deep friendships over the social class boundaries that exist. It is not a matter of the rich kids being snobby or unfriendly, but rather the fact that they tend to move in different worlds and have different interests and expectations, as well as more money to spend for entertainment and socializing. So while your kid may very well end up "knowing" many young people who someday will themselves be rich and influential, the likelihood of forming the kind of friendships that will pay off in terms of jobs and connections is more tenuous, and probably depends largely on factors such as personality and world view. </p>

<p>As the initial question: I am one who feels that each person's life and education is what they make of it, and not a function of what college they have attended. However, there is a difference between the academic environment of colleges at the high end and those at the lower end. I am not sure that this is an elite/non elite dichotomy -- it may very well be that there are excellent small private colleges or honors programs at public universities that compare favorably with the Ivies -- but there is definitely a qualitative difference in the way classes are taught & the expectations of the professors. I have a daughter who is a freshman at Barnard, and a son who is a junior at a CSU (Cal State), which he attends after transferring from a far more prestigious and selective LAC. </p>

<p>My son has some teachers at the CSU that he really likes, but he is frustrated with the level of of instruction in his classes. In one class, which was an introductory class required for his major, he complained to the professor about the superficial level of the course. The prof told him that it was difficult to teach the course, because while many of the students were prospective majors, others were there because it was a required course for people who want to become high school history or government teachers, and the prof needed to meet the needs of those future teachers as well -- and they needed a survey type course where they learned the terminology, rather than a course with in-depth exploration of the subject matter. </p>

<p>Makes sense -- but that is not an issue that my son would have run into at his far more rigorous LAC, nor one that my daughter is likely to run into. My daughter has shared some of her end of term writing with me, and I am utterly amazed at the quality and scope of what my daughter is producing during her first semester at college. It is obvious to me that there has been tremendous intellectual growth in the past few month -- and my son isn't getting the same thing. </p>

<p>However.... my son is at the CSU in part because he messed up at the LAC. He could do the work, but he didn't have the discipline or motivation to do it, so he worked for A's in the classes he liked, and slacked off in the ones that he wasn't interested in. So he managed to get only A's, C's & D's (a 3.0 GPA without a single B) -- the A's were in the more difficult subjects, so it is pretty obvious to me that my son figured he could get away with doing very little in some of the other classes, and miscalculated. </p>

<p>So it does really come down to the individual discipline and motivation of the student. In hindsight, there was a better choice for my son -- a well-regarded LAC that was a safety for him and offered him generous financial aid, but was much less prestigious than the one he chose -- but still more demanding than his present environment. </p>

<p>So basically, my advice to a a parent of a 10th grader is to let the student's inclination and motivation be the driving force. Don't push the kid toward an elite college if the kid is no so inclined; don't stand in the way of a kid with high aspirations. Do figure out what your finances will allow, and be honest with your kid -- the kids who have the credentials to get into Ivies also are likely candidates for generous merit awards at many less prestigious, but academically strong schools -- and of course if you qualify for need-based aid, then even the Ivies may be in reach.</p>

10

<p>dovetron, welcome to the parents forum. If you are interested in discussions on the value of education at elite schools, you have come to the right place. There is almost always at least one or two active threads on this subject and the archives are full of them. If you spend much time on the parents forum, you will quickly find that this is not a cross section of parents of college age kids. Many of us have kids who are, if not gifted, at least strong academically and determined to find the best and most suitable college opportunities. For some that will be a good State U; for others, an Ivy or other top college. If the State U option was a good and obvious choice, few of us would have been attracted to this forum.</p>

<p>Clearly there are some very strong State schools. That is not the case for the majority of States. For many of us, the "flagship" State U's are still a long way from being highly ranked, or well funded. My D applied to a State U, primarily as a safety. She was accepted and offered merit scholarships for full tuition and part of the cost of room and board. Instead, we are paying near full tuition at a top 25 private. The differences between the State U (which my older D attended) and the private are very noticeable. Some of the considerations were the very low quality of the offerings in my D's area of interest, poor student:faculty ratio, and most importantly the weakness of the academic culture among the students. The bottom line is that I wish we lived in a State with really strong colleges and universities. Another option of course is to consider out of State U's. Often that option is pretty expensive and rivals the cost of many private colleges.</p>

<p>When it comes time to start making selections, I recommend you do some research beyond the level of USNWR rankings and by all means make some visits along with your kid. Please sure to dig deeply when you investigate both the academics and college cultures.</p>

11

<p>Dovetron,
Welcome.
I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as a generic answer to what you pose as a fairly generic question.
Yes, I agree with those who have posted here that there is a visible & palpable difference between (certainly) a more accessible college (such as some publics) and a very highly rated private. There are also differences between any 2 less extreme examples, in publics vs. privates.</p>

<p>But, as some posters have also pointed out, & as I would be able to predict for my own children (one of whom is in a private), it matters not whether most or some students see those differences & can take advantage of those differences, or whether an observer can notice objective differences. (Some carefully & accurately noted above.) It matters only whether the student himself or herself feels comfortable in that environment, feels challenged, engaged, energized intellectually AND socially. And one is not divorced from the other. A student of any age who truly does not feel comfortable in the social climate will not produce there no matter how fine the ranking, how fine the profs, how prepared the student body, how great the resources, labs, libraries. The discomfort could be from size, it could be weather, it could be social groupings, dominant political orientations, style of dress, whatever.<br>
Conversely, as a couple have pointed out above, a campus that fits the student well in nonacademic ways but does not challenge him or her intellectually will leave the student unsatisfied.</p>

<p>That is why Know Thyself, and Visit,visit, visit are so important. </p>

<p>For example, there are students that would do horribly in most any LAC. I can think of one, quite close to me. That is mainly because of size. Some people, because of their personalities, really do need large environments & very many other personalities to bounce off of. Just as huge settings intimidate many quiet, shy people, small settings can inhibit the "out-there" person, who needs broader boundaries to accommodate an expansive personality, & who flourishes in big-impact environments.</p>

<p>The other factor is the opportunities themselves, in the programs sought, particularly if a student has defined interests or an intended career path. There are actually some State Universities & some public research universities which overshadow many high-profile privates when it comes to particular areas of opportunity & reputation, by academic department.</p>

<p>And that's why, after Know Thyself, and Visit, the family's own research is really important, i.m.o.</p>

<p>While there are some publics whose student bodies are as well prepared & as brilliant as most of the students attending Ivies, so far one of the main differences I've seen is in external factors. The facilities, the maintenance of the campus, the personal support, the "perks," etc. are noticeably superior at certainly the higher-profile privates (not just Ivies). For some students such differences are a big deal. (However, generally they have little long-term impact but may contribute to the "college experience"/college life factor.)</p>

12

<p>


calmom, I don't know how I missed this until now-blame the servers I guess. D's school has an incredible number of very wealthy students . Or as she puts it "You have to listen carefully to know where someone is from. They may say 'we left our house and walked down the beach' and a minute later say they 'love living in Colorado but for the tourists'. It took me a while to realize they were boarding school kids whose parents owned several homes that they stayed in during different parts of the year." </p>

<p>While D is home sleeping 24/7 some of her clasmates have left for Barbados to unwind. </p>

<p>She hasn't had any problems (yet) but we'll have to see how this plays out. ;) She'll have to make do "unwinding" on the couch.</p>

13

<p>I am familiar with some state schools having attended them as students and having taught at one ( University of Maryland). I am also familiar with some private schools and some top private schools such as Carnegie Mellon; thus, I have some decent observations that I can share with you.</p>

<p>At the start, I am going to make some generalizations derived from the data base of my experiences, which is always a dangerous thing to do. Thus, take what I am going to say with that in mind.</p>

<p>First let me note that every school has a different culture and different levels of support. You really have to check out the schools carefully when you make selections. Even IVY and top LACS do differ in culture, locations, opportunities etc. I can't emphasize this enough.</p>

<p>Secondly, the curriculum is generally equivalent from school to school. However the top private schools do have advantages over many of the lessor known state schools as follows.</p>

<p>Organization: I have found private schools generally better organized and more parent- student friendly than that of many state schools. State schools tend to be more bureaucratic than that of private school. They tend to have more hassles in registration, dealing with financial aid, and dealing with the administration in general. This may not seem like much to you ,but it really can make a difference. </p>

<p>I have a son who attended Fairleigh Dickenson,which is a private school that has strong support for kids with learning disabilities. I have been very impressed with the school in many ways. However, my other son attend a state university in Maryland, This school has been a hassle in many ways and very disappointing too.</p>

<p>Dorms: state schools, based on those that I have seen, usually have inferior quality dorms that that of the private schools that I have seen. Think of state schools as having prison like designs for their dorms. Even worse, many state schools have triples and even quads in their dorms. Although I never thought this to be a problem since kids could study in the library, I have had second thoughts about this. My daughter is in a quad at a state school. If any kids get sick, it carries over to her. If one kid is awake, the can keep the whole room awake etc. </p>

<p>Private schools tend to have nicer dorms and less people in them. In fact, some private schools have single occupancy dorms as an option, for more money of course.</p>

<p>Food: Private schools usually have better food. I can say that the state schools that I have encountered have had atrocious food. However, in all fairness,the same can be said at some private schools too. They must use the same caterers. </p>

<p>Reputation and connections:At private schools, kids can make more connections with kids from upper tier and successful families than that found in many state schools. As noted above, however, kids from differing economic strata may not mingle as much as we might want or believe. However certainly the opportunity to meet kids, boyfriends and girlfriends, from very successful families do occur more at private schools.</p>

<p>Education: Although the curriculum is similar, kids form top private schools do seem to work much harder on the average. There is no questions that the average kid at a top school will work harder and be more driven than the average kids attending a state school. Private schools also have more opportunities for research, and closer student- faculty relationship. Rarely do I see students getting to know their professors at a state school. This is a really important point that should be considered.</p>

<p>Some top private schools have a very high level of expectation and have lots of opportunities that aren't available at state school. Check out my review of Carnegie Mellon and RIT.</p>

<p>Reputation: Here is where the tires meet the road when it comes to the extra cost involved. Many more firms recruit at top private schools than that of lessor known state schools. I can give you a good example with the University of Maryland.</p>

<p>Maryland had a career fair where they had 20 employers in total attending the program. I happen to see a career day at Carnegie Mellon where there were almost 100 employers! I have little doubt that there are a lot more recruiters at top schools than that found at most state schools.</p>

<p>Even more telling is the job placement. State schools usually have mediocre job placement. At top private schools such as CMU and RIT, job placement is strongly emphasized. In fact, some private schools have very strong coop programs built into the curriculum such as Northeastern, although a few state schools have this too such as University of Cincinnati. Don't underestimate the value of coop and internship opportunities for both experience and connections.</p>

<p>Alumni connection: State schools tend to be much larger than most private schools. Thus, they tend to have larger alumni connections. Thus, if you wanted a job in Maryland, graduating from the University of Maryland would be more beneficial than graduating from a state school elsewhere and trying to work in Maryland.</p>

<p>State funding: One big concern is state funding. States have been cutting back considerably in funding. This could affect both the quality and quantity of their offerings. For example, if insufficent required courses are offered, this may necessitate more semesters of attendance in order to graduate. This is common at state schools and severely cuts into their cost advantages. In addition, budget cutting can affect the school's long-term reputation. This has to be considered by you and is, in my opinion, a very important consideration.</p>

<p>Bottom line: Personally, if we were talking about a top private school such as an IVY, Tufts, MIT, Caltech, Top LAC such as Williams etc. I might recommend these schools over most state schools IF the student doesn't go into debt up to their ears (i.e. incurr over $100,000 of debt to graduate). I really do think it is worth the money for the increased connections and increased job placement as long as substantial debt isn't incurred.</p>

<p>However, if substantial debt needs to be incurred ( over $100,000 at graduation) or if you have a strong state schools in your state, such as Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin or California, I might recommend a state school over a top tiered private school. </p>

<p>This general recommendation does have exceptions. Thus,if you have a kids with an interest in a major that isn't particularly strong at your local state university, a private school or even attending a state school as an out of state student would be a better choice even if it isn't a top tier school. Private schools are also much better choices for kids with special needs. You just need to find those schools that cater to these needs.</p>

<p>Finally, I would rarely, ever recommend a private school over a state school (absent what was said above), if the private school is NOT a top tiered institution. I don't think that recruiters generally are as plentiful at lower tiered private schools. Thus, if the same major such as English or Math is offered by your in-state university, attending a second tier private schools would seem to be a waste of money. Attending a top tier school, however, might well be worth it.</p>

<p>Sorry about the length of my ramblings. I just finished a book by James Joyce, and I guess I have resorted to a stream of consciousness form of dialog.</p>

14

<p>Taxguy, nice summary. I do think you were a bit light on emphasing the differences in academics. Elite schools are able to pick from the nation's brightest and most unqiue kids. Many of these kids are highly motivated and expect to be challenged and work hard. There are equivalent kids at State U's, but just not any where near as many. This alters the rigor of the academics and the academic and often social culture. I do also agree with your comments about second tier privates. It can cost a lot of money to attend some very modest privates when the cheaper State school might be a better choice.</p>

15

<p>

My son is from a modest family of 8 (he's the oldest of six kids), and he is a sophomore at Duke. To date, he has not found this sense of disconnect between himself and the more wealthy students who are his classmates. I guess to some degree this is because he has always been in environments in which there are others who have more than he...and others who have less. Also, he tends to shy away from the situations and activities in which these differences would be more glaring (for example, he has no interest in fraternities for a number of reasons). He has met most of his friends through his interest in physical fitness (at the gym) and in his dorm, and both of those milieus are "equal opportunity." </p>

<p>This kind of financial/wealth/class difference was actually a pretty serious concern of mine at the beginning, but it has proved to be unfounded in my son's case.</p>

<p>~berurah</p>