<p>
What’s more, those schools do the same thing by taking kids who have been prescreened by selective high schools, selective summer programs like TASP, and by prize-granting organizations.</p>
<p>Every multimillionaire’s kid at my alma mater receives a subsidy (call it a “merit scholarship” if you want - though, oh yes, my alma mater doesn’t give “merit scholarships” (tell me another fish story)) of more than $35k a year, or almost $150k over four years. The multimillionaire families know a good deal when they see one. In fact, the subsidy for the so-called “full pays” (really a misnomer) is about the same size as the average “tuition discount” (misnamed “need-based aid”) offered to those who can’t afford he asking price. </p>
<p>As an alum, I don’t see any great purpose in subsiziding the millionaires’ kids, and so I don’t. They could easily raise the price to $85k (over a five-year period), and get it, and use the extra funds to subsidize those who can’t pay the next asking price. I bet the number of applicants would go UP, not down. (In fact, they will, and are, raising the price - but at a lower rate that the increase in assets among a-hem “full-pay” families, so prestige colleges have never been cheaper - for them. Every time they raise the list price, the number of applicants goes up.)</p>
<p>As I said, multimillionaires know a good deal when they see it.</p>
<p>@blossom - I get it. And there are plenty of rewarding careers for those at the next tier. Let Goldman and Evercore fill up with the HYPS grads. I contend (and buy into) that stat; exceptional students earnings will normalize after 10 years, no matter where they graduate from.</p>
<p>Also, to your point:
</p>
<p>I’m just guessing, but the “rock star” from Ohio Northern might be a cheaper “get” than the middling HYPS grad - that alone, when compounded over a number of hires, could easily fund a search beyond the elite schools.</p>
<p>It also depends on where you’re located. I don’t think the typical HYPS grad considers “fly over land” (aka the Midwest) much of a draw. And vice versa</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pascarella and Terenzini, 469-70 (emphasis added)</p>
<p>Smile and nod, smile and nod…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“We found a small body of evidence to suggest that attending a selective college confers a modest advantage on job attainment and career mobility."</p>
<p>Right, but some of us don’t care, because that’s not the sole purpose for the endeavor. Staying in a nice hotel in Paris doesn’t make seeing the Mona Lisa any different from staying in a modest one, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth paying for. Some of us believe in and value the experience that is, in our opinions, best had / best enhanced at more selective schools with a certain group of peers. Taking it back down to “what will you make” is really crass, IMO.</p>
<p>I do agree that there are far more important things to get from college than “job attainment and career mobility.” Based on the general tenor of comments hereabouts, however, I suspect that you and I are in a distinct minority, PizzaGirl.</p>
<p>If “come to our college and be surrounded by a certain group of peers,” was the way the so-called “best” colleges were perceived, then I’d have no problem with it. But the implications of magazine covers that scream, “America’s Best Colleges,” and the colleges that shamelessly pander to move up a slot or two on the list, and then trumpet their positions on the list, are that being a “best” college means getting the “best” education. And as I think I may have pointed out once or twice, t’ain’t so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are likely correct, because only a small minority* of college students can afford to disregard “job attainment and career mobility” in choosing a college and major. For them, being able to attend a college without regard for such considerations is an expensive luxury, although “job attainment and career mobility” is not necessarily the only reason behind their choice of college and major.</p>
<p>*Those from very wealthy families, or those with qualifications to get near full-ride merit scholarships, or those with qualifications to get into the most selective schools with the most generous need-based financial aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that in terms of choosing a college, the data shows that the effect on job attainment and career mobility is a lot less than commonly assumed. In terms of a major, the effect is clearly greater, though not in ways that the conventional wisdom would think - as you yourself are so fond of pointing out (correctly), majoring in a STEM subject does not mean a guarantee of a lifetime of riches if that STEM major is biology; and a student who is not suited to engineering, for example, either by talent or temperment, may succeed in getting through a college program in that discipline and perhaps getting a first job, but I would think is unlikely to go very far (as well as being in many cases profoundly unhappy).</p>
<p>The plurality of STEM majors are nurses, and they do quite well. (and their choice of college doesn’t seem, in aggregate, to matter much, though some of the two-year RN programs are more difficult to get into in terms of selectivity than virtually all the snooty places. Maybe we have to redefine “elite”?)</p>
<p>In terms of choosing a college, most students are not like the people here debating the value of often-highly-selective colleges all over the country. Most are choosing between one or a few moderately or less selective local state universities and the local community college.</p>
<p>Students at the moderately or less selective state universities do tend to choose obviously pre-professional majors (e.g. business, nursing) more than those at schools that most people here tend to look at. Whether or not their assumptions about the value of such majors are correct can be debated (though in many cases, the offerings at these schools are skewed toward non-engineering pre-professional majors, with limited advanced level offerings in or absence of many of the liberal arts and engineering subjects), but there is no doubt that assumed job and career outcomes are playing a significant role in major choice.</p>
<p>I don’t dispute at all that assumed job and career outcomes play a significant role in major choice, and I would not argue that they should play no role in major choice. But the world is too full of people with non-STEM liberal arts degrees who have had very successful careers to conclude, as some do, that majoring in English or philosophy or French or sociology or <the horror!=""> art history that they’re setting themselves up for a lifetime as a barista is wrong, in my opinion.</the></p>
<p>The best job I ever had in the business world (in terms of both income and job satisfaction) was working for a small consulting company that worked with businesses on human performance issues and training development. I worked in a group of eight highly skilled professionals. The academic backgrounds: Two had undergraduate English degrees and English PhDs; one an undergraduate and a master’s, both in English; one a computer science undergraduate and an educational psychology PhD; one an undergrad elementary education degree, and she might have had a master’s in education, I don’t remember; one a philosophy undergrad, no graduate degree; one a bachelor’s and a master’s in business (that was me); and one a bachelor’s in math and no graduate degree. </p>
<p>The point? Someone who masters any difficult subject well can adapt to a wide range of employment situations, and excel in them. Yes, it probably is going to be more challenging for the expert in Shakespeare to get that first job right out of college than the expert in sewage treatment plants; but long-range, they should both do just fine.</p>
<p>Looking at only the eight successful people does not necessarily prove your point, since the context of the entire cohorts of each major’s graduates is not referenced (for example, there are more business majors than math majors). It is also a very small sample size (and a tiny portion of each major’s graduates).</p>
<p>Who’s more successful, the thirtieth most successful investment banker in America, or the fifth most successful poet?</p>
<p>Depends on how you define success.</p>
<p>Who was more successful, the unappreciated Van Gogh or the richest banker in Paris of the period?</p>