<p>My daughter is a super-senior at Harvard (graduating in December 2014; she took a year and half off after freshman year), and my son is a rising senior at Yale, so I’ll try to answer the question in personal terms:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Financial Aid: For our family, the cost of attendance at both Harvard & Yale is actually LESS than what our state school would have cost, and tens of thousands of dollars less per year than other schools, such as Williams, Middlebury, Pomona, Wesleyan, etc. (Full Disclosure: Our family’s income fluctuates but we generally make about $140k to $160k per year. H&Y have made college affordable for us – my kids will graduate with zero debt and no loans, and we didn’t have to deplete our savings or take out loans to make the tuition payments. It’s been absolutely amazing.)</p></li>
<li><p>Noted Professors: Each of my kids has a noted world famous professor in their field of study as their mentor/advisor for their senior thesis.</p></li>
<li><p>Class Size: Most of my kids classes have 12 students or less. Personalized attention seems to be the norm. </p></li>
<li><p>Recruitment: Name-brand companies interview and recruit students from HY. Both my kids have mega-paying internships in New York City this summer, one with a famous google-like music sharing company and the other with a legal firm. It’s too soon to know if these internships will turn into jobs. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>One anecdote: when my daughter was looking for a job during her time off from Harvard, she would cold-call employers for jobs. Everyone said they were not hiring, but when my daughter mentioned her college, every employer called her in for an interview and offered to find her position with the company. So the H bomb is real and it works.</p>
<p>All of that said, my kids would have been just fine at their state school. It would have cost us more money, they would not have has as many small classes or the quality of professors, but they would have had a great education nonetheless.I don’t know if they would have had as much access to name-brand recruitment though.</p>
<p>I think the Ivies are all about that -yes they’re prestigious by name, but the true value comes with all the resources offered that you probably could not find in a local state school. Not to say that only Ivies offer these resources, all top schools do, but Ivies are an example + they come with the name recognition which never hurts</p>
<p>“The top state schools are research powerhouses as well and have profs of the same quality (in research prowess) as most Ivies.”</p>
<p>@PurpleTitan Of course. Top state schools are still top schools. The issue’s more prevalent at average schools, public or private.</p>
<p>However, because schools like Harvard can afford to pay more $$ to their professors, these top profs are found in higher concentrations at such places. Combine that with smaller class sizes, and these professors become more accessible. Let’s say Podunk U (can’t believe I’m using this term lol) has 30,000 students and uhh 200 uber-distinguished professors (just to set a number, I don’t know the actual figures). That would give you about 150 students per uber-professor. Now HYPS/HYPS-peer has around 15,000 students total and 500 uber profs, giving you 30 students per uber prof. Even if the # of uber-faculty were the same, the smaller student body would allow them to devote their attention to each student. Less competition for attention = more access to faculty-led research/etc.</p>
<p>" BTW, I know that most 18 year-old wants to be in a select group of other smart people, but don’t kid yourself: it’s mostly so that you can feel better about yourself."</p>
<p>Lol for some people this may be true</p>
<p>“The truly confident kid believes that he can achieve just as much by his own efforts at a state school as at a high-priced Ivy.”</p>
<p>But some kids know they can succeed anywhere. There’s just certain comfort in being around like-minded peers/feeling that being “nerdy” is okay lol</p>
<p>You’re right, though. These advantages aren’t worth $200,000.</p>
<p>There’s no denying that ivies are probably the best ones out there for many majors. From small class sizes to resources. However, there’s one thing if you consider a great education. You can get that ANYWHERE you wish. but for some people, remaining among the highly motivated kids is a plus. While that is not true for another kid. While some people want to go to a ivy league to get that astonishing six figure salary just after graduation, there are many people who would rather start there own companies where they are going to hire graduates folks who want that six figure salary.</p>
<p>As you can see, UDub, UCSD, and UW-Madison absolutely dwarf Cornell in funding. OSU, Case Western, Rochester, and UAB bring in several times more research money than Brown, Dartmouth, or Princeton.</p>
<p>So which schools would you consider “average”?</p>
<p>Also, while your numbers are right, your premise is wrong. At a school like OSU or Wisconsin, there will be several times more undergrads than at schools like Brown or Princeton, but you made the assumption that kids at all 4 of those places would be equally committed to doing research, and that’s simply not true. At a place like OSU or Wisconsin, a far smaller percentage of kids would be committed to doing research compared to a place like Brown or Princeton (and a far greater percentage would be committed to partying), so ironically, there may actually be greater opportunity for an undergrad to be under the tutelage of a renown expert in the field at a place like Wisconsin than at a place like Princeton.</p>
<p>Indeed. The elite private research universities are . . . research universities. Upper-level classes will be smaller, but they will be smaller at big state publics as well. I personally don’t see a major difference between attending a lecture class with 200 other students and attending a lecture class with 800 other students. </p>
<p>"As you can see, UDub, UCSD, and UW-Madison absolutely dwarf Cornell in funding. OSU, Case Western, Rochester, and UAB bring in several times more research money than Brown, Dartmouth, or Princeton.</p>
<p>So which schools would you consider “average”?"</p>
<p>Exactly. Those are all top 100 schools. Out of 3000 colleges in the US, that’s pretty darn good. By “average” I mean uhh let’s say the lower 2700/2800 schools.</p>
<p>PS: Princeton/Brown/Dartmouth are very, very undergrad-focused, so of course they don’t receive the large amount of funding that generally goes towards grad programs. Princeton actually has twice as many undergrads as the # of grad students.</p>
<p>“you made the assumption that kids at all 4 of those places would be equally committed to doing research, and that’s simply not true. At a place like OSU or Wisconsin, a far smaller percentage of kids would be committed to doing research compared to a place like Brown or Princeton”</p>
<p>Hmm true, hadn’t thought about that. However, for large schools upper in the ladder (Berkeley/UCLA/Michigan/etc.) there’s still a large number of students interested in research, so it’ll be tougher to get there. Again, not worth those $200,000 though.</p>
<p>If you are planning to go on to graduate/ professional school (MS, PhD, MD, JD, MBA) and you don’t qualify for FA, then it’s not worth the cost. </p>
<p>It’s the last school you attend that counts.</p>
<p>All ivies, LACs, top 100 colleges are utopias. No matter who goes to these universities as unergradudates, they are going to get out with a huge payscale, research works, publications, Pulitzer prize or all the things. But I think it’s better to get a real world example in terms of job opportunities. I went to WWDC few days earlier and ironically most of the engineers I met during the 5 days were not ivy league graduates (graduated as undergrad).</p>
<p>When it comes to college admission process, ALL people say: well, you didn’t got accepted cause you don’t match their expectations or types. While it won’t be true if a kid can fabricate the kid’s essays, resume ACCORDING to the college. But will the student be able to take advantages of all opportunities? food for thought. </p>
<p>However, those ivies aren’t as costly as it seems IF a student qualifies for aid. I’m going to a college where my total COA is ~2K after aid. </p>
<p>@GMTplus 7 What if you don’t qualify for FA and you spend $200K on a top 5 undergrad degree which makes it possible to be recruited by a financial firm offering to cover the costs for an MBA (understanding the commitment that one must then work for this firm for 2 years)? </p>
<p>Now, a top MBA would cost less, say an average of $150K according to Poets/Quants, and admission could be obtained from any good undergrad program if the student has the GPA and GMAT scores. So…would the elite undergrad be worth the top recruitment opportunity that leads to the last school you attend for a top MBA program?</p>
<p>Just trying to consider if the consulting/ financial firm recruitment opportunities offered by an elite LAC degree (with higher salary, signing bonus, MBA costs) is worth the undergrad tuition costs.</p>
<p>Let’s assume you want to get a Harvard MBA, the gold standard. You don’t get there by just GMAT scores and GPA from any school, you get there by being a promising rising young exec at a select set of companies. How do you get to be a promising young exec at a select set of companies? By having a degree and contacts from a select set of schools, the elite schools everyone talks about. Same is true of Wharton. </p>
<p>Can you get into either from a public college? Of course, but the odds are against you. Only ~17% of the class at HBS or Wharton comes from public universities. Those are pretty low odds, especially when stacked against the Ivies making up just over 30% of each class and taking into account how many more people go to publics vs. Ivies.</p>
<p>The fact is, colleges are basically large filtering mechanisms, and once you start down one path, it’s really difficult to jump to a more elite filter. It can be done, but the odds are much greater for you to start on the elite filter and continue down it. That’s why people go to Ivies and their equivalent.</p>
<p>It’s true that many big state schools are research powerhouses and attract more research funding than do Ivies or other selective private colleges, but the OP was asking about undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Research funding is far more a measure of graduate and post-doctoral strength than it is of undergraduate education quality. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that it is not that important to get into an Ivy League or top 20 school. Success awaits and is driven by many different factors. However if all things are equal financially or the variance is affordable. To ignore the amount of influence and preparation these schools provide and I’m including schools like Williams, swathmore, Harvey Mudd, Pomona etc may not be worth it. if you want engineering you may not choose Yale or Williams but why not Princeton or Cornell if possible along w the obvious choices like MIT . Prestige doesn’t exist in a vacuum and those same issues that attract students are the same things that attract faculty and administration and the resources that enable the curious to grow. Just about every student on a top 10 campus could have attended some other school for almost no cost. If you are lucky enough to have a chance to be on these campuses you will find the pluses go well beyond name recognition. </p>
<p>It definitely isn’t important to attend an ‘Ivy’ because some of them wouldn’t even qualify as being elite schools if they didn’t play football against Harvard. It is probably helpful to attend a top school though (at least in my estimation). </p>
Correlation isn’t cause. For example, somewhere on the order of 10% of Harvard’s class is black. That’s only a small portion of the class and less than the percentage of black HS students in the US, yet I wouldn’t say that being a member of an underrepresented minority means the odds are against black students being admitted to Harvard. If you want to see the influence of undergraduate college name in admission to Harvard Business School, you need to at least consider the admit rate for the undergrad college and even better is would be to compare comparable quality applicants as measured by GPA, GMAT, and work experience/success, among other things. Furthermore, just looking at Facebook profiles, like the earlier link’s analysis method, creates a biased sample since persons who attended certain undergrad colleges are more likely to mention the college name in their Facebook profile than others.</p>
<p>Yes, we lack data on who applied compared to who got in, but it’s a pretty big leap of logic to think that HBS and Wharton were overrun with applications from Ivy undergrads and no one from publics bothered to apply, thereby evening the odds. Furthermore, Harvard released a list of 264 schools of people who got in - but it’s a pretty good bet there are a lot of “one-shot” admissions in that list while there were multi admissions from the schools Poets & Quants managed to find. In fact, given that they found 638 of the 918 ungrad schools of the class, I’d say they have a pretty accurate model and your objection to it falls apart.</p>
<p>@Erin’s Dad actually I was being sarcastic (I didn’t need to.). I’m not sure if some people would ever understand that great education can be get anywhere. not just in those 8 colleges.</p>