lets face it guys.. dartmouth < then

<p>I don't think my statement was remotely unfair. I'm not saying that Dartmouth isn't a terrific school and my post was not even about Dartmouth, but rather, all schools. A lot of kids do not have a financial safety net and they don't have the luxury to ignore the prestige of a college and the potential salary that they might earn by graduating from Harvard, or Yale, or wherever else. Please tell me exactly why my comment was unfair.</p>

<p>'don't have the luxury to ignore the prestige of a college and the potential salary that they might earn by graduating from Harvard, or Yale, or wherever else'</p>

<p>The "wherever else" part of that statement is the only part that makes sense. Think of it this way: If you go to a school like Harvard or Yale that costs a lot of money for an education, whatever income you make will be offset by all the loans you have to pay back. You'll be very lucky to get a financial aid package from one of those schools that doesn't require you to take out some loans.</p>

<p>That said, there's no really conclusive evidence that graduating from one of those places gets you more money in the long run. I like to believe that where a person goes to college doesn't matter as much as what that person does with their degree. You could be a legacy admission to Yale, for example, slack off, and have a crappy job. Or you could go to a state school on scholarship, work hard, and end up successful. People put far too much emphasis on the fallacy that you will make more money if you go to an Ivy League. In business and law, the connections made at such a place will help you out, but ultimately, it's up to you to take the initiative. Just because you went to an Ivy League doesn't unconditionally guarantee your future success.</p>

<p>Woah, you're misunderstanding me here. </p>

<p>Of course people can be very successful without going to a prestigious school. My aunt has more than 5 zeroes on her salary, though, and she attributes it entirely to going to Harvard. I think it's absurd to ignore the impact that a prestigious school can have on someone's potential salary, though of course there are exceptions and people like to deny it, but don't take what I said to mean anything other than what I said.</p>

<p>actually, research disproves your aunt's logic, unless she's a minority (which research says only gives minimal boost; the boost i'm talking about is from going to a "prestigious" school). i can't give you the cite right now, but jay mathews has written on it.</p>

<p>You're missing my point. The original statement you made regarding my disregard of prestige implied that I had the "luxury" of ignoring prestige because (you assume) I am wealthy. The point I was making is: people who believe they can't afford an expensive school should not choose Harvard because they feel forced to make a decision based on prestige. It is far more economical to go to a state school in that case (especially, for instance, in Florida, where the Bright Futures program pretty much guarantees full tuition to smart students if they choose to go to an in-state university). And given that you'll get an education and be able to make your way in the world afterwards, it just makes more sense. I don't think that anyone has any "obligation" to choose a school based on prestige.</p>

<p>An obligation would imply an outsider imposing it on them, which isn't the case. Harvard and Yale and Princeton all have pretty hefty financial aid packages for poor kids and if they had the option of paying nothing at Harvard or paying nothing at State U, I think most people could tell you which the more financially fruitful decision would be, despite what bunk studies claim to prove.</p>

<p>salsera927, i agree with your post (#65). and that's my issue with your view, fids. </p>

<p>i wish i had some intelligent argument to add to this but i'm just too lazy.</p>

<p>It is possible to have self-imposed obligations.</p>

<p>"bunk studies"? can you tell me on what bases you were able to say that? anyway, here's the article i was talking about: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A35560-2001Apr4&notFound=true%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A35560-2001Apr4&notFound=true&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>and i stand corrected, according to this particular study, going to prestigious schools may make the difference for minorities and for low-income students, but i was assuming that your aunt wasn't from a low-income family (of course i could've been mistaken). and i never said these studies were perfect, but i don't think you can call it nonsense just because it is counterintuitive to what most people think.</p>

<p>Though I do not doubt Dartmouth offers the most enjoyable undergraduate experience, I would like to clear up one misconception about Penn:</p>

<p>Unlike Columbia, nobody comes here for the city. Philadelphia is nice, big, and diverse, but it's definitely not one of the world's best cities. Penn students are famously isolated from the city for the most part; they've given it the nickname of "The Penn Bubble."</p>

<p>JohnnyK,</p>

<p>agreed! I believe people choose Penn based on Penn, not Philly. Columbia is probably a mix of Columbia-love and NYC-love.</p>

<p>From what I have heard, a lot of people don't like Philly but loooooove Penn.</p>

<p>And Columbia folks that I've talked to tend to be disappointed with the lack of a community on campus because most people scatter into the much-more-interesting city after classes instead of hanging around at Columbia.</p>

<p>Which, I suppose, is an advantage in Hanover if you like the community feel, but a big disadvantage if, by some cosmic miscarriage, you hate a majority of the people in your class.</p>

<p>The way I see it, you have your whole life to do the NYC thing...you only have 4 years of college, and they should be something special with a special bunch of people.</p>

<p>Ergo, Dartmouth > Columbia (though I'd love to go to Columbia for grad school)</p>

<p>lol talk to slipper :-D</p>