<p>OP-
I took the liberty of looking at some of your past posts on different froums, and while I won’t mention the tier 1 school I think your s is considering, if that is the one, it is WELL RESPECTED in the field of neuroscience. Great choice!!! I hope, hope HOPE the numbers work for you, because that choice will be hard to beat with a tier 3 regional/local small school that doesnt offer his desired major.</p>
<p>** btw, AD’s stale “data” has been refuted many times in many posts. He just claims he doesnt read them.</p>
<p>A philosophy professor who is pitching his class “above” the level of most of his students is a bad professor, no matter where he got his degree. There are just so many people who are well-qualified to teach now that every university could be filled with great teachers. But are they? I joined CC hoping to explore that and I guess I was naive. In my own field I know some brilliant people who are teaching at under-the-radar schools, and some tiresome blowhards teaching in the ivy league. But among peers you get more motivation, energy, and confidence in a higher ranked school I think-- and that’s very important.</p>
<p>Very similar situation here. DD’s first choice was a private that offers neuroscience, which was her preferred major, with long range plans for med school and psychiatry. Second choice was a public that does not offer neuroscience but does have extensive psychology and biology offerings. The difference in cost was about $8,000 per year. The public, after all grant and work study aid, comes to about $12,000 a year, plus books and incidentals, and we’re able to cover that without her taking any loans.</p>
<p>DW and I told her that we could, with some difficulty, cover half the difference between the two schools, and that we were willing to do that. She would have to take the subsidized Stafford loan and the small Perkins she was offered to make up the difference. We left the decision completely up to her.</p>
<p>After thinking about it for a couple of days and talking to a number of people about it, she made the decision to go to the public and graduate debt-free.</p>
<p>Annasdad I read the actual summary of the paper (or at least one paper they wrote) and they clearly state (Item 2 under between college effects) that the weight of evidence suggests that measures of college quality, PARTICULARY STUDENT SELECTIVITY, have statistically signficant net positive effect on future earnings. Also notes that an 100 point higher SAT scores correlates with a significant (although not huge) increase in earnings.</p>
<p>They then go on to say that they think this is not so important and that student ambition, which is not measured, is also critical. </p>
<p>Not sure where you got your quotes but this is from UIS.edu and is a chapter in a book by the authors you cited.</p>
<p>Yes, mom2and, I’m aware of that, and have cited the same information (from their 2005 tome) on these forums before.</p>
<p>And we need to be clear: this shifts the conversation from educational outcomes to economic outcomes, which Pascarella and Terenzini are careful to distinguish in their summary of research.</p>
<p>At any rate, here’s what they say - from pages 594-5, with their exact language in quotes, and emphasis added:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, at page 475, again with my emphasis:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, yes, for a given student, attending a very top institution may confer a slight lifetime economic advantage (which is the reason why I’m always careful to qualify my summaries by “with a narrow range of exceptions”). But to read some of the comments here, you’d conclude that the difference for a given student between attending NoNameU versus attending USNWRBlessedU is the difference between a life as a barista and a life as an executive living in Scarsdale or Winnetka or Shaker Heights.</p>
<p>EDIT: For parents making college decisions, if they choose to accept the data, whether to spend a lot more money on the chance that it may provide their kids a slight economic advantage is, of course, very much a personal decision, and certainly one that I would not criticize. But I think it is important that parents have that information - largely ignored by the mainstream media, and anathema to many frequent posters here on CC - so they can make that decision with their eyes open.</p>
<p>Perhaps. But assuming that you are correct, all it does is reinforce the fact that not all student bodies are equally able, and that professors are going to be pitching the material to the level of the average student in their classes.</p>
Really? Sounded like there were several aspects of that school shat she didn’t like, that didn’t feel right, but you strongly encouraged her to go back for another visit, and after that somehow the “feel” was better and the concerns were lessened. But I guess “fit” isn’t important, eh? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Mamaof1 – Unless that Tier 1 has instant name recognition, take the money and run.</p>
<p>Gwen wrote: “A philosophy professor who is pitching his class “above” the level of most of his students is a bad professor, no matter where he got his degree. There are just so many people who are well-qualified to teach now that every university could be filled with great teachers. But are they?”</p>
<p>My response: The question really is: Is this a “bad professor” that has incomprehensible logic, doesn’t know, doesn’t understand, and has bad skills as a teacher, or is this a “difficult professor” who presents difficult topics and challenges the students to work to ascend to level of the college-level material – and thereby gain an epiphany and the process to reach other, similar, epiphanies?</p>
<p>PolarBearVsShark, what would you consider to be an instant name recognition? I know of some tier 1’s that everyone knows or has heard of, but then there are tier 1’s that are known throughout academic circles as being wonderful schools and their name is instanly recognizable. This may be one of those.</p>
<p>re the philosophy professor: don’t forget that my 15/16 yr old had no problem following him. Granted, he was an unusual 15/16 yr old, but still…</p>
<p>I believe the situation was that, perceiving that the students couldn’t “go there,” he had to cut short areas of exploration and circle back. For the student who is ready willing and able to go beyond, this would get old very, very quickly.</p>
<p>I’ve been able to teach chaos theory to community college students. A good teacher can do this. The difference is that I have to spoon feed the material so the kids never draw their own conclusions. At an elite institution the kids come prepared, having read the material and already mastered it so the discussions go further and master the material FOR THEMSELVES.</p>
<p>My children also took Stafford loans ( minor) but I offered to repay them. I think parental values show up here, and there is no right or wrong position. My kid wanted to play the violin but had ADD and lacked the discipline to practice on his own. I sat with him an hour every day. Most folks thought I was crazy and he was spoiled.</p>
<p>The upshot was he played in his college orchestra and when he left home he did finally learn to practice on his own. I considered my time a great investment (and I was a working mom). S’s Carnegie Hall playing teacher confided to me that his mom did the same thing. A friend of mine took her kids instrument away after he hadn’t practiced (on his own) for a week.</p>
<p>We had different goals and different outcomes, but I don’t either of us regrets our choices.</p>
<p>I like Annasdad story about paying half the differential and if student would pay the other half she could go. It doesn’t have to be half and half, but I think if the higher cost solution will involve sacrifices on your part it is very reasonable that your son make some sacrifices too.</p>
<p>I’ve seen too much vagueness, grumpiness and arrogance disguised as ‘difficulty’, I think. Of course there are brilliant teachers who challenge students to see things differently, etc. And I am sure high student selectivity means a stronger peer group, greater challenge-- and often a better social experience too. Confidence and open-mindedness go hand in hand. </p>
<p>I love your examples mythmom. I think we’re all guinea pigs right now as higher ed takes a sharp turn. If I were a sociologist I’d like to study all these different goals and different approaches, and see what comes out over the years. I think we’d all be surprised.</p>
<p>re: Annasdad’s story and ‘skin in the game’-- we saved for D’s education and D knows exactly how much is there, and has been very aware.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the context, as always, GwenF. It sounds for certain mythmom is a good or great teacher for making sure no one gets lost in the wilderness. I can’t say any of my undergraduate professors had that kind of immediate mercy. I always found them devious and sadistic because there was always some kind of hidden meaning I missed and got clocked for, which made me work with cautiousness and an air of paranoia. In my postgraduate days, the curriculum was oddly easy, yet I watched my classmates drop like flies around me. Not so sadistic after all.</p>
<p>Back to the question about name recognition-- I think the school name is a familiar one, maqmaof1. Don’t know if people outside the region would be as aware that its a good school, but that can be said about a lot of schools.</p>
<p>Is there a big ‘downside’ if OP’s S went to the lower tier school for two years, and then transferred to tier 1 school? The money saved in the first two years could be put to great use in the latter two.</p>
<p>I’m glad you like the story; but I hasten to point out that $8,000 is not $30,000, and the facts that the baseline debt was $0 and that we had some wiggle room made it possible to consider the option. Had the difference in net price been $30,000 (or even half that), or had she already committed to borrowing money to meet the cost of the public, it would not have been an option, for her or for us.</p>