<p>^Because the government and the parents care about the intellectual and moral growth of the students and they want to ensure that the next generation becomes productive, independent citizens who can contribute to society in a positive manner :)? </p>
<p>I don’t think the government is spending money on public education out of the concern that these kids won’t be able to earn enough to be wealthy one day…</p>
<p>Oddly,Steve Jobs has no Ivy credentials.I think pro-ivy folks are retreating into “undefinable”,subjective stuff like “profound intellectual experience”.Tell me a single math ,philosophy or literary text ivy graduates can read that state school grads cant.Or must we learn from each other how to interpret Shakespeare in order to have a profound intellectual experience.?Another assumption,is of course that being an auditory learner is better than being a visual one,otherwise why is learning from fellow students held to be more important than figuring it all out on your own in the library?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The government’s motivation is to have the children to grow up to become productive citizens – the wealthier they are, the more taxes they will pay, and the less welfare costs they will impose. Government spending on education is based on the idea that more or better education will make the children more productive and wealthier later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There might be alternative explanations for these “patterns,” however. Interestingly, the Hamermesh study at Texas found that while higher HS GPAs and higher SAT scores correlated with higher post-college earnings, kids who came from affluent neighborhoods had, on average, significantly higher earnings than kids from less affluent neighborhoods with identical HS GPAs and test scores. Hamermesh offered only tentative explanations for this: for example, perhaps the kids from more affluent neighborhoods entered college with stronger and better-connected social networks that they could later use to their own economic advantage, to secure more lucrative employment, for example.</p>
<p>But if that’s the case, it once again raises the “chicken-and-egg” question: are the graduates of elite colleges more successful financially because their college places them within social networks that afford greater economic opportunities? Or do those who attend elite colleges and universities disproportionately start out with backgrounds that give them access to social networks that afford greater economic opportunities, which they then carry with them through and beyond their college years? In short, how much is it the college adding the value, and how much is it the well-connectedness of the types of kids who end up there? Hard to sort that out, I should think. My guess is it’s some of each. But given that roughly half of those attending Ivy League colleges in any given year are full-pays, presumptively from families with $200K + in annual income; and given that households at that level of income represent well under 5% of the nation’s households; then its a fairly safe bet that the student body at these schools comes in disproportionately well-connected from the get-go. No doubt there is value added for the less well-connected among them (generally those on FA) to have the opportunity to rub shoulders with their better-connected peers and gain entree to those networks. But again, that may be more a sorting, mixing, and social networking function, rather than value added by a superior education per se.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the definition of good citizenship and productivity is based on the accumulation wealth, then the government must have found people going into academia, bench research or non-profit work highly undesirable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Such work (at least in theory) generates positive externalities, even if it does not result in a lot of wealth for the doer. Such positive externalities (at least in theory) increase the wealth of various people in society, and ultimately the government (through increased tax collection and reduced use of welfare). And sometimes academic research produces something that the government can use for various purposes.</p>
<p>Note that similar reasoning can be applied to why certain profitable activities are illegal. They have (at least in theory) negative externalities which reduce other people’s wealth, with the attendant negative effects on the government. Of course, the calculation becomes more complicated, since having something be illegal means that there will be costs of police enforcing the law, courts to have trials of those accused, and prisons to hold those convicted.</p>
<p>Of course, not every government policy is based on economic analysis of this type.</p>
<p>Oh I see. In that case, I presume that you’re referring to the wealth of the government, or perhaps even the collective “wealth” of the nation as a whole. Non-profit work and academia certainly benefit the welfare of the society but they’re not lines of work that best contribute to the wealth of the individual, which I believe was what storytimes was implicitly referring to when he said, “more/better education has never equaled more wealth”, since that is also what the research study under discussion is currently questioning.</p>
<p>But I guess it’s not that relevant. :p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is so odd about that :)? The Ivies are eight, quite different higher education institutions out of thousands more out there, a good percentage of which can offer very good education for students who are internally motivated. Also, notice that we’re not simply talking about the Ivies here, but rather “elite schools” in general, which includes colleges with very different atmospheres ranging from large research universities to LACs.</p>
<p>As for your second point, most of which that is to be gained from the college experience is subjective and indefinable by empirical measures. Students learn in college to become independent, to immerse themselves in new ideas that can hopefully engage their intellectual curiosity, to come out of their bubble and meet people with diverse interests and life experiences who can hopefully challenge pre-conceptions and endorse acceptance and open-mindedness, and of course, to gain skill that’ll useful in their future line of work, etc. A top college does this well: from the high volume of application it selects groups of students with very diverse backgrounds and interests, with little commonality other than a liking for academics. It then provides them with the best faculty who are the top of their respective field, resources and opportunities, etc.</p>
<p>Learning from fellow students is important because others challenge your assumptions and force you to think, to question, as I am doing right now in response to your post and others will do in turn. It allows you to learn to better express yourself in the process. At the “elite college” I attend, I’m frequently amazed by how well people in my classes articulate their thoughts and have strong opinions on just about anything. I love how I can strike an intellectual conversation with virtually anyone in the dining hall, and I’m so very often inspired by their enthusiasm and dedication. It’s a blessing to be surrounded by a high concentration of conscientious peers of high ability and intelligence.</p>
<p>There is no single math, philosophy, or literary text Ivy grads can read that state school grads can’t (good universities in general tend to have large library systems or subscription to databases, but that’s another thing altogether). Many self-motivated students learn only by themselves when they don’t have the luxury of exchanging thoughts with similarly minded classmates. The difference here is the initiative. There is a tendency for ambitious and motivated students to want an elite education, so we’re discussing, broadly speaking, correct me if I’m wrong, whether it is the school that make the people or the people that make the school. Elite colleges undoubtedly provide intangible benefits, but is that a necessity for success, in this case financial success, or do people who have the ability and initiative do just as well in any atmosphere?</p>
<p>Wow. I know at least two very successful investment bankers who went to LSU. In fact one now owns a blue chip company. Go figure. PS They are definitely doing better than I am with my Ivy League degree.</p>
<p>There is a good reason why most folks sitting on the Supreme Court are Ivy alumni, or having Ivy ties.</p>
<p>There is a good reason for the fact that most IB firm employees have Ivy League degrees. </p>
<p>There are good reasons for Ivy school being more competitive in college admissions process. </p>
<p>It could be for the prestige, could be for the money, could be for its experiences. Like a few blind people touching the same elephant, we all are describing the experience and perception from our own unique perspectives.</p>
<p>I think anyone who thinks about elite colleges / elite college experiences and immediately narrows the field down to the 8 which happen to be members of the Ivy League is pretty low on the sophistication ranking. If you were to take say the top 25 LAC’s and top 25 universities … it’s all good. Really. They all provide more than enough opportunities, more than enough smart people to powwow with, more than any one person could take advantage of any way. If, hypothetically, my kids had gotten into all 50 of those schools (and finances were all equal), I’d tell them to pick on personal preference / fit and nothing more. </p>
<p>And kxc1961, no one <em>cares</em> that most IB firm employees have Ivy League degrees. IB is no more or less important than any other career path. It’s just one of many. “Proficiency” at placing into I-banking is no more or less important than proficiency in placing into any other career. It is not a sole signifier of “good college.”</p>
<p>@PG,
Thanks for the comment. For folks who wants to retire by the tender age of 30, going to IB would not be too bad of a deal. Having collective bonus of $150B for FY 2010, working for Wall Street makes it possible for certain people to retire early, if that is the preferred path for life. Again, IB as a career may not be everybody’s cup of tea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now that was interesting … I think I need to read more on this one!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a noble group. So, the education wasn’t “working for” your son, so he disrespectfully and selfishly “ditched” his Ivy before he got the sheepskin? What a brat. He may have been better off at a community college where he could be around peers who don’t have the luxury of throwing out their parents’ money so callously.</p>
<p>And your “elite LAC” educated daughter basically does the same thing, but at least she got the piece of paper for bragging rights. lol</p>
<p>Looks like you and your husband taught your children well. You showed them that you don’t have to have material things to prove you’re better than others. Just expensive degrees (or expensive almost-degrees) that you don’t use. Good job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? People in IB make a lot of money at a young age? Why, knock me over with a feather. Who would have ever known that? That still has nothing to do with whether a school is a “good school.” Nothing, zip, zilch.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. Just wow. How is an education ever a waste, even if it’s not used? My social circle happens to include tons of at-home mothers who have fancy-schmancy undergrad and grad degrees. Was that wasteful of them to obtain it?</p>
<p>I think that you really can’t know if Harvard “pays off” until you get mature enough to realize what is important and valuable to your life. Monetary pay off is only one metric and, as people get older, it may become a less important measuring stick for many.</p>
<p>Actually the older i get ,the more i realise how "culture " cant substitute for poverty.This is a message that looks pretty obvious to a 25 yr old male without a trust fund.</p>
<p>I have posted this comment recently on another CC site. I would like to share it here.</p>
<p>Speaking of the purpose of getting into a good school and studying for a practical profession and the importance of money in our lives, I wish to make the following comment: </p>
<p>Out of necessity for survival, human being has been “greedy” since the beginning of time. Granted that most of us are not worrying about putting food on the table and having a roof over our heads, for some of us, money becomes just a number. For example, for most folks, at AGI of over $70-100K, more money is just a number. For folks like John Paulson (AGI over $5 billion last year), I don’t think any more money will help or hurt him either way. To Bill Gates and Warren Buffett of the world, money is just a numbering game. What they care about is how to give away their money and how fast (or how effectively) they can do it.</p>
<p>On the other end of social economic scale, there are plenty of people living through their lives paycheck at a time. The motivation for those folks may be different from most of us on CC everyday. To these people, money is not merely just a number. It is a matter of survival and a matter of life and death.</p>
<p>For people like myself, over 20 years ago, as a graduate student, started out with only $200 in my name, I somehow made it to the rank of “middle class”. I still remember the days when every penny counted in our budget. (Well for God sake, the gas price was 75 cents for a gallon!!!) It is still very important to me today demanding for best effort from my kids and demanding that they do their best to get into a good school, and study for a profession that allows them to bring home the bacon for their future families. I am not sure these kids understand what I am talking about. I am sure, one way or the other, they will eventually get the message someday down the road.</p>
<p>I’m always having problems with the research done on the subject of “colleges paying off”. There is so much noise in the data.</p>
<p>There are exceptions, there are many exceptions, but there is correlation between a successful career in academia and having received a PhD from a top grad school. In the academic studies it is easier to get into a top grad school after having attended a top college of a research university simply because it is easier to get letters of reference from more renowned professors. </p>
<p>Of course there are other ways to get solid letters but these ways are not necessarily cheaper. Summer research jobs at top research institutes are available, but it is hard to get one if the student doesn’t attend college there. Taking unfunded summer courses at top colleges or doing an an unfunded masters before applying to grad school are expensive alternatives. </p>
<p>Attending a top college of a research university right from the start is a much safer route if one is foreseeing a career in academia.</p>
<p>A couple of quick comments: 1) I think the poster, who said you can retire by the age of 30 working in the investment banking field, is living in a dream world. 2) And, reverseosmosis, without knowing this family, you might want to tone down your harsh judgemental attitude.</p>