Going to a college "beneath" you

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Everyone keeps talking about “fit”. But parent guilt trips could be just as influential in a college decision… Luckily my parents know I’m strong-willed (read: stubborn), but even they tried to convince me that UT would be better for me because it was better for them, despite my feelings. I loved Vandy and couldn’t see myself at UT. They still like to guilt trip me about matriculating at VU, despite May 1 being long gone. “We could’ve gone on vacation this year, you know, but YOU chose to go to Vanderbilt.” “The reason we never have groceries is because we put all of our money towards Vanderbilt.” And so forth.</p>

<p>So I’m just saying that’s definitely a viable reason for people to not go to the best/their favorite school.</p>

42

<p>I am very blessed to live in this country. I’m even more blessed to have finances that would put into what is likely the top 5% of the country.</p>

<p>That said, I can’t describe how disappointed I am in the title of this thread and the OP. If a college is “beneath” you, then the people at that college must be “beneath” you as well. This is the kind of elitism that we do not need. Whether it be financial, intellectual, sexual, or racial; elitism is a cancer in this country that needs to be destroyed.</p>

<p>Can anyone here defend this? What is the difference between judging a person is “beneath” someone else based upon the college they went to, or their sex, or the color of their skin?</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>What an incredibly misinformed post. UT Austin is a powerhouse that has all the resources any undergrad could need.</p>

44

<p>I was in a class once where the teacher said “does anyone know the difference between fact and fiction?” (This was at a university in Wales with a poor reputation.) It’s potentially an interesting question. You can look at Oliver Stone and “faction”, and that sort of thing, the fact that history and story are the same word in some languages. The answer she wanted was “fact is true, and fiction is made up”. </p>

<p>If you want to aim higher than a class like that, you shouldn’t be accused of elitism. The anti-elitism thing let Bush run America for too long: “Hey, you want a smart person to run the world? You’re an elitist…let’s have this guy instead…”</p>

45

<p>^ UT Austin is just fine for job offers in Texas.</p>

46

<p>What’s amazing is that all this talk and worry about prestige is for a UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE that in the end NOBODY will care about. These kids who “settled” will do just fine. In fact, many who frequent these boards will be working for THEM someday.</p>

47

<p>You know if you get into the wrong kindergarten you’re doomed…</p>

48

<p>It’s important, where you go for an undergraduate degree. I didn’t mean it about kindergarten, obviously, but each stage after high school matters.</p>

49

<p>Wow! Until reading this thread I had no idea how miserable and worthless my life must be…having gotten my 2 degrees from lowly state universities.</p>

50

<p>“Stanford is a once in a lifetime opportunity and turning it down for a school like UT Austin is wholly irresponsible on part of the individual.”</p>

<p>I know someone who got into Stanford this year and got no financial aid. His parents can’t afford to help him so he is going to make a go of it on his own. I’ll tell you what is irresponsible, Stanford not giving one dime to a middle class family with extenuating financial circumstances, (medical).</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course; you’re quite correct. But the thing is, they don’t word it as “can you tell me which schools are excellent / excellent in XYZ field?” They word it as “can you tell me which of these schools are most prestigious?”</p>

52

<p>As a general rule, you should attend a college where you are in the bottom half of the class based on SATs. If you get into a reach school, you should attend. Otherwise, you are selling yourself short. You will grow more at a school where you are in the bottom half of the class.</p>

53

<p>^That depends entirely on the individual. Whether or not YOU would be selling yourself short, other people may strive where they are at the top of the class; receiving the most attention from professors and priority access to resources.</p>

54

<p>So are half the students in the Ivy League selling themselves short? You standard makes no sense.</p>

<p>There is no “best” school. There is only the best schools for you.</p>

55

<p>Going to a school where you are in the bottom 25% may work to motivate some students. Other students would be constantly demoralized and defeated. Once again, we are back to the concept of “fit”. What is the best environment for that individual student to learn and thrive?</p>

56

<p><<there is=“” no=“” “best”=“” school.=“” there=“” only=“” the=“” best=“” schools=“” for=“” you.=“”>></there></p>

<p>I so agree. It took me a while to convince DH, but he’s on board with it now.</p>

57

<p>OP, are you certain all those impressive kids you refer in post #1 actually GOT INTO the prestigious schools? </p>

<p>Could it be possible that they might have been [GASP] rejected? :eek:</p>

58

<p>ring<em>of</em>fire wrote: </p>

<h2>“I agree with the above poster. Putting finances aside, would you rather go to UT Austin or Stanford? It’s not even a comparison. You’re selling yourself short by going to a “lesser” school and not fulfilling your academic potential.”</h2>

<p>ROF, may I conclude you do not actually attend Stanford? hehehe</p>

<p>Look, I attended Stanford back in the Pleistocene era. My first choice was UCLA. I reasoned that on balance – finances, location, non-profit interests available specifically in LA – tipped the decision in UCLA’s favor. My parents disagreed, and a compromise was reached in which I would attend Stanford for one year, then transfer to UCLA if I still felt the same way.</p>

<p>I did, and I did.</p>

<p>Today, that financial part of that decision makes a lot of sense as my parents do not have the savings buffer they thought they would (life happens), and the tuition which they saved (in today’s dollars, $110,000), and room/board they saved by my living with two roommates in an inexpensive 1 bedroom apt. and eating a lot of rich (another $20,000 in today’s dollars) really makes a significant differnce to their ability to enjoy retirement all these years later. </p>

<p>I graduated debt free, worked in non-profit for 11 years, then got my MBA at UCLA. In my case I believe UCLA was the right choice, and would have been from the beginning. It all worked out with the transfer.</p>

<p>You should read the book Harvard Schmarvard sometime. I don’t agree with some of the author’s conclusions, of course, but the majority of his position is right on.</p>

<p>“… not fulfilling your academic potential” – here is where you run into a sand bar. My undergrad interest was in Linguistics, in particular phonetics and Field Methods. Unbeknownst to me at the time, transferring to UCLA actually gave me the opportunity to work in class and in research with the world’s foremost phonetics researcher, Peter Ladefoged. In other areas of Linguistics, I learned from Victoria Fromkin, Pam Munro (Chickasaw), and others in classes with both undergrad and grad students. In my field, UCLA was actually more prestigious.</p>

59

<p>collegehelp wrote: </p>

<h2>"As a general rule, you should attend a college where you are in the bottom half of the class based on SATs. If you get into a reach school, you should attend. Otherwise, you are selling yourself short. You will grow more at a school where you are in the bottom half of the class. "</h2>

<p>Can’t agree with you there collegehelp. Some people perform better when following and attempting to catch up, others when leading. Some high performers fold like paper when confronted with underperformance for the first time relative to their peers.</p>

<p>People are not machines. Emotions play a huge role in performance. Some should ONLY attend a school in which they are in the top half, or even top quartile. You are right that others peform better under the pressure of trying to catch up to the higher performers.</p>

<p>There is no general rule about whether top half or bottom half is a better choice.</p>

60

<p>Choosing a college is much more like picking a boyfriend/girlfriend than it is like picking a mutual fund. LOTS of factors go into which person strikes one’s fancy, and you can’t necessarily reduce all of those factors to nice neat statistics.</p>