Ivy League Undergrad Quality without the elitism

[noimagination]

<p>

The average salary for a Dartmouth grad 10 years out WITHOUT any graduate degree is something like $130,000. The average at a state school is closer to 65K. No difference? I think people on these boards just don’t get it. Going to an Ivy puts you on a career path that isn’t accessible to non-Ivy grads.

Correlation does not imply causation. And the Payscale methodology is bogus anyway.</p>

[hawkette]

<p>Johnny,
As an Ivy grad, your statements personify what this thread is addressing….</p>

<p>Looking at standardized test scores is hardly deceiving—LOL—but claims that some schools are more holistic in their admissions process than peer colleges…now, that is deceiving. Please do provide some evidence to support your declaration.</p>

<p>As for your other assertions on yield, jobs and grad school placements, you have an inflated sense of the Ivies’ sway, particularly outside of the Northeast. Consider an applicant from dozens of places (Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Memphis, Miami Seattle, etc) distant from the lair of the Ivies and you’ll find huge reversals in yield, not to mention different perceptions of what constitutes elite job and grad school preferences. </p>

<p>The Ivies are fine colleges, but hardly the only good places around. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you stay nestled in your ignorance in the Northeast and don’t venture out. You might be in for a shock.</p>

[johnnybegood]

<p>

@hawkette

Johnny,
As an Ivy grad, your statements personify what this thread is addressing….

</p>

<p>

@hawkette

If you think otherwise, then I suggest you stay nestled in your ignorance in the Northeast and don’t venture out. You might be in for a shock.

</p>

<p>I didn’t confirm or deny that I am an Ivy grad. Nor did I say (or not say) that I am from the Northeast. So who’s being “ignorant?”</p>

<p>

@hawkette

Looking at standardized test scores is hardly deceiving—LOL—but claims that some schools are more holistic in their admissions process than peer colleges…

</p>

<p>Are you suggesting that HYPSM with their 60-75%+ yields cannot enroll higher SAT scorers if they chose to? Some of the schools you claim to be “equivalents” (e.g. Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc.) have 30-something percent yields. If they were to try to enroll a greater number of high scorers, their yields would drop to the unfathomable point at which they would have trouble filling their classes. </p>

<p>

@hawkette

As for your other assertions on yield, jobs and grad school placements, you have an inflated sense of the Ivies’ sway, particularly outside of the Northeast. Consider an applicant from dozens of places (Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Memphis, Miami Seattle, etc) distant from the lair of the Ivies and you’ll find huge reversals in yield

</p>

<p>But the “reversals in yield” are not equal. Otherwise, the overall yields would be the same.</p>

[hawkette]

<p>I don’t recall posting that Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. are equivalents to HYPSM, but I absolutely believe that they are equivalents to the non-HYP Ivies. And there is plenty of data to back that up. </p>

<p>Re your statements on yields, I don’t recall seeing the study that determined that high yields = great education. I must’ve missed that one. Please post the link.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

The average salary for a Dartmouth grad 10 years out WITHOUT any graduate degree is something like $130,000. The average at a state school is closer to 65K. No difference? I think people on these boards just don’t get it.

</p>

<p>Correction: what most people on this board “don’t get” is a course in Statistics. Even an high school student in AP stats can opine on why payscale data is GIGO.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Re your statements on yields, I don’t recall seeing the study that determined that high yields = great education. I must’ve missed that one. Please post the link.

That doesn’t matter. The assertion is that schools with such high yields could probably alter the shape of their classes to include more high scorers if they so chose.</p>

<p>Is that assertion true? I don’t know - I’m just here to clarify :)</p>

[johnnybegood]

<p>

@hawkette

I don’t recall posting that Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. are equivalents to HYPSM, but I absolutely believe that they are equivalents to the non-HYP Ivies.

</p>

<p>Not when it comes to yield.</p>

<p>

@hawkette

I don’t recall seeing the study that determined that high yields = great education. I must’ve missed that one. Please post the link.

</p>

<p>I will be more than happy to do that as soon as you post where I explicitly stated that “high yields = great education.”</p>

[johnnybegood]

<p>

@noimagination

Quote:
Re your statements on yields, I don’t recall seeing the study that determined that high yields = great education. I must’ve missed that one. Please post the link. </p>

<p>That doesn’t matter. The assertion is that schools with such high yields could probably alter the shape of their classes to include more high scorers if they so chose.

</p>

<p>Thanks for interpreting for the logically impaired.</p>

[monydad]

<p>"…somehow a few non-Ivy grads end up with successful careers. I wonder how they do it. "</p>

<p>Simple, they get grad degrees from an Ivy.</p>

<p>(just kidding)</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>hawkette, hawkette, hawkette, hawkette - I hope that you are kidding here?</p>

<p>you went much much further in your comparisons ---- </p>

<p>should we copy/paste your comments stating that **Rice was better **than HYPSM because of its great baseball team?</p>

<p>

I don’t recall posting that Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. are equivalents to HYPSM, but I absolutely believe that they are equivalents to the non-HYP Ivies. And there is plenty of data to back that up.

</p>

[warblersrule]

<p>

@JohnAdams12

should we copy/paste your comments stating that Rice was better than HYPSM because of its great baseball team?

Nonsense. Hawkette said that Rice was better than HYPM* for her given her predilection for colleges with a decent mix of academics, social life, and athletics as measured by her criteria. There is, of course, a tremendous world of difference between those two claims. </p>

<p>As for the veracity of her claim, well, hawkette is the best judge of that. Although CC posters delight in telling others where they “should definitely” go or which school is “way better” than another, the only person who can select a truly appropriate fit is the person himself.</p>

<p>*Stanford is a favorite</p>

[MSauce]

<p>The big thing that doesn’t make sense to me here is the idea that the top Ivies don’t give you a good return on what you put into it.</p>

<p>Look, you can look around at the top jobs, and see that Ivy Leagues are well overrepresented compared to the actual number of people who are Ivy League educated. Through the people who post on these threads, you can see that many of your most impressive peers will be attending Ivy League schools (plus Stanford, MIT and CalTech, of course, a long with a couple others). Through different data, we can see that these Ivy League+ schools offer superior education in many factors, by mixing the research opportunities and high profile faculty of a major University with the small classes and community of a Liberal Arts College.</p>

<p>The idea that the money you spend at the very best schools isn’t truly worth it seems ridiculous to me, because at most of these schools, they tend to give you the money you need. If you have a special circumstance with Financial Aid where you’re not getting what you need, I understand that. But for the middle class, most of the Ivies offer very reasonable (and sometimes free) tuiton. For wealthier people, the cost isn’t as significant a factor. I can understand someone saying “I was on the edge of the Financial Aid cutoff, so I decided to go for the cheaper state school option because the investment wasn’t worth it.” But the vast majority of people either fit in with some significant aid or can pay the tuition without much hardship.</p>

<p>The irony of this discussion (in regards to the Ivy Leagues) being thrown in with a discussion about LACs is how totally backwards it is. Let’s take a look at this post, for example:</p>

<p>Nobody suggested that Mac was a rival to the Ivies. Nobody suggested that the Ivy student body would be equal to Mac.</p>

<p>

Undoubtedly, the student body at the ivies are stronger both quantitatively and qualitatively. The ivies do have more to offer, because they do spend more per student.</p>

<p>I’m just saying that degrading Mac (and Carleton) with comments like “we’re only looking at WUSTL, Northwestern, Chicago, we’re not even looking at Carleton” and “Mac has a 40% acceptance rate (indicating thats not low enough for your son)!” is unnecessary.

</p>

<p>People try to make it out that Ivy League people are elitist because they don’t consider the small LACs, but I truly feel its the other way around. When I applied, I was similar to the person who instigated the above post. I only applied to HYPS, along with the Alma Maters of my parents (Columbia, UMinnesota-Twin Cities). I know that the Ivies are expensive, but I’ll get a diverse campus, great networking, an incredibly prestigious name, research opportunity, and etc. (we don’t need to list the advantages of an Ivy again). But at a school like Carleton? Carleton is $52,000. And for what? Slightly smaller classes than UM-TC’s honors program?</p>

<p>The way I saw it (and likely the way the person with the similar dilemma saw it), I figured why spend 50K at a school that offered marginally more than the State school. I saw the sizeable advantage of the Ivies, I didn’t quite see it at a school like Carleton or Macalester.</p>

[Chardo]

<p>I agree and have stated the same point–the Ivies are expensive, but worth it. Can’t say the same about many other private schools.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

The idea that the money you spend at the very best schools isn’t truly worth it seems ridiculous to me, because at most of these schools, they tend to give you the money you need. If you have a special circumstance with Financial Aid where you’re not getting what you need, I understand that. But for the middle class, most of the Ivies offer very reasonable (and sometimes free) tuiton. For wealthier people, the cost isn’t as significant a factor. I can understand someone saying “I was on the edge of the Financial Aid cutoff, so I decided to go for the cheaper state school option because the investment wasn’t worth it.” But the vast majority of people either fit in with some significant aid or can pay the tuition without much hardship.

There can be a very sizable difference between the state school and the Ivy for upper-middle class families. That money can be used for professional school, savings, or any of a wide variety of uses. To me, it all comes down to opportunity cost and return on investment. Does the increased earning potential from <em>insert Ivy</em> outweigh the opportunity cost of the additional $1x0k? The answer will not always be yes.</p>

<p>That is of course given that the student would be happy at the cheaper school. If not, the situation becomes more complicated.</p>

<p>For what it’s worth, your admissions strategy sounds smart to me. Although I would hesitate to dismiss Carleton/Macalaster/whatever outright, since they might be right for some students.</p>

[pbr]

<p>I don’t believe that the prestige of an Ivy League education trumps the benefits of an elite LAC experience for every student. My older child is at an elite LAC, and my younger is at an Ivy League institution. Each is at the right place; each would be misplaced at the other’s institution. College is not just about popular prestige. My older has grown much more as a student and a human at his LAC than he would have at an Ivy League school, in my opinion. As a parent, it disturbs me that many young folks seem to care more about creating identity through affiliation, rather than through personal growth (which is, for many, easier in an LAC than in a high-falutin’ national university).</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>“But at a school like Carleton? Carleton is $52,000. And for what? Slightly smaller classes than UM-TC’s honors program?”</p>

<p>I don’t know Msauce, Carleton is pretty awesome. Minnesota is an excellent university too, but how can one compare the two. An honors or residential program, even at an elite public university, is not the same as a pure LAC. And Carleton isn’t just any LAC, it is one of the top 3 LACs in the Midwest and one of the top 15 LACs in the nation. I can see how a family with the means to afford it would be willing to pay the extra tuition to send their child there, assuming there is a good fit.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>I am skeptical of claims that an Ivy diploma, per se, confers enormous advantages in the job market. Research seems to bear this out:
<a href=“http://papers.nber.org/papers/w7322;[/url]”>http://papers.nber.org/papers/w7322;&lt;/a&gt;
[Does</a> an Ivy League Education Amount to Higher CEO Pay?](<a href=“http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol3n1/ceo.xml]Does”>http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol3n1/ceo.xml).
Nevertheless, I agree the Ivies are attractive. Their most attractive features, to me, include:
small classes; excellent professors, students, and facilities; focus on the liberal arts. I’m not too interested in the “elitism” issue (it’s hard to define and measure).</p>

<p>At any rate, not every student can get into one of these 8 schools. So where else can you find similar features? Especially if your state does not have a top-of-the-line public university or strong honors program.</p>

<p>In my opinion, the greatest concentration of Ivy-like quality (for the features I mention) is in selective liberal arts colleges. If you look at post-graduate outcomes data (professional school placements and PhD production), there is fairly good evidence of pay-off from the learning environment at these schools. How much of a price premium this is worth would be up to each student and family. If you are happy with your state university, that’s wonderful because the cost difference can be huge if aid is not a factor (which it often is, and which often tips the balance more toward the private school.)</p>

[Redroses]

<p>What everyone should not ignore, especially in economies like the one we’re in, is that maybe the measure should not bbe increase in salary as opposed to being able to get a job!</p>

[hawkette]

<p>tk,
I wouldn’t limit it to the LACs. There are many fine non-Ivy national universities that offer pretty intimate settings, eg, Duke, Northwestern, Wash U, Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, Johns Hopkins and even public William & Mary.</p>

[pmartin57]

<p>Well, as a parent whose D was accepted at Carleton, where we are full-pay, and at UM-TC honors (with very substantial merit aid) and whose D picked Carleton, I can tell you that there are lots of excellent reasons to pick Carleton. We are thrilled with her decision.</p>