<p>JHS, My daughter goes to Michigan. Any questions? What's your wife's problem?</p>
<p>I'm one of those graduates from public U who is happlily sending S to a private, specialized college. All but my Honors classes were large.</p>
<p>I met and have socialized with one of the astronomers at this school. Besides winning a teaching award, he also won an international award of almost 1/2 million. His research projects are fascinating, and students can get involved from first term. Univ profs in this field know each other and I know interested students can easily spend summers working with other profs (thru SURF project). </p>
<p>If astronomy was my child's field of interest, I'd want them to attend a school with a strong department and a lot of research opportunities. This would matter most, not if state U or private.</p>
<p>She has spent more time in Ann Arbor than I, and she didn't particularly enjoy it.</p>
<p>That's a fundamental problem. :)</p>
<p>So I guess the only reason why kids are dying to get into the top schools is because they're misguided? They don't understand that prestige is meaningless? They don't realise that they can get the SAME education at the University of Florida that they could get at Yale? Come on!</p>
<p>You can't get the SAME education in 2 different schools even if both of them are "top" . :)Kids are dying to get into the top colleges for all sorts of reasons. Some of them may be misguided, thinking that getting into this particular college is a golden ticket into "happily ever after" . Life is a little more complicated than that. There is also life beyond CC , where kids are going to college without high drama of prestigious- college- admissions game. They also somehow survive and even more often than not get their own "happily ever after" .</p>
<p>bookworm -
Yes - research ops and a strong department are important - and if that can be combined with well cared-for undergraduates that is ideal. These two don't always go together. There are cultural as well as financial considerations that effect this, and a little snooping is worth it. </p>
<p>I also believe that looking at related departments is important. If astronomy is of interest, look at collabortive work in physics and geology, applicable math courses, consortia, and so on. There should be a journal club or the like, as well as regular colloquia in the department and related departments. A chapter of WISE (Women in Science and Engineering) is encouraging.</p>
<p>I guess what I am saying is that you can't be entirely sure of arguing from the general quality of the college (however you choose to define that) to the specific quality of the department. Of course, the kid may have several departments that are of interest ... mine did, we did sort of a matrix thing where if the college was good or better in at least 4 of the 5 majors he was considering, it stayed on the list.</p>
<p>As someone that is a relatively recent law school graduate, I can definitely say that someone's undergraduate school has absolutely no bearing on large law firm hiring (i.e. the highest-paying jobs for law school grads). On the other hand, law school reputation has a huge bearing on a person's chances to nab the most prestigious positions. The primary advantage of going to a top 10 law school is that someone doesn't have to be on law review or in the top 10% of his or her class in order to competitive for the top jobs out of school while there is a lot more pressure at lower tier schools to get stellar grades right off the bat.</p>
<p>For those with, say, the finances of a typical upper middle class family that will need to incur a substantial amount of loans in order for a child to go to a private school, I would definitely lean toward going with the in-state tuition for undergrad and then be willing to pay or incur the loans for the best law school that the child can get into (whether it's private or public). I find there's little point to incurring six figures of debt for undergrad (with the only possible exception being admission to a truly elite school) if that person is going to have to add another six figures in debt for law school.</p>
<p>With undergraduate eduation, I'm a big believer in comparative value. I can understand that if someone gets into Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, or the like, there's a certain value to that degree and experience that might very well be worth the high price of tuition. When you get outside of the top 10 or 15 schools that won't elicit the automatic oohs and ahhs from the average person on the street, however, it's hard for me to see how much additional value that the private schools that aren't in the very elite tier versus the top state flagships from the quality of education and employment/grad school opportunity standpoints.</p>
<p>Personal Disclosure: I graduated from my home state's flagship public university (a Big Ten school that is considered to be a top 10 public) without having any debt and then took out a large amount of loans to go to a second tier private law school. Even though I did well enough in law school to now have a large firm job, I cannot imagine if I had to pay undergrad loans on top of my law school loans today. Just my 2 cents from my personal experience.</p>
<p>No one is saying that the education is the "same" -- but it is not a linear relationship based on prestige or rank. It depends on the school and it depends on the kid. My son is at a CSU where his largest classes have maybe 40 students; my daughter is studying on an Ivy league campus where some of her classes have more than 300 students. There is no question that her academics are far more challenging -- but my son would absolutely hate it there - small classes and an opportunity for one-on-one discussion with his profs has always been a high priority for him. At this point he is also paying his own way through school, so money is a factor as well. </p>
<p>My daughter has not yet decided on a major, but was interested in possibly studying linguistics. She was accepted at UC Berkeley, but chose her east coast elite -- after she sent in the deposit, she learned that her college doesn't even offer a linguistics major. Berkeley has one of the best linguistics departments, especially for her field of interest. So -- as far as linguistics is concerned -- she goofed. But even if she had stayed in-state, she probably would have chosen Santa Barbara or Santa Cruz over Berkeley, because she didn't want the overall Berkeley campus environment & lifestyle. Academically? I think Berkeley would have clearly been best. Fit? Wouldn't have worked out so well. She's happy where she is, but not so blinded by its prestige that she can't see the faults. Of all her high school classmates, the kid who chose UC Santa Barbara seems to be happiest at college.</p>
<p>Each kid's life will take some different directions in part influenced by where they went to school. My own life was similarly influenced, in ways that I could not have anticipated when I chose my school. That's life. </p>
<p>For what its worth, I am the daughter of an Ivy grad and I attended an out-of-state public university. My choice -- though if I learned anything from having an Ivy grad parent it's that it's no big deal and certainly not a guarantee of fame or fortune.</p>
<p>calmom--
[quote]
after she sent in the deposit, she learned that her college doesn't even offer a linguistics major.
[/quote]
:D</p>
<p>This says something about "above average" kids and mistakes. Not sure what, but it says something. ;)</p>
<p>
She just assumed.... all big universities offer linguistics, right? And I had encouraged her to focus more on the quality of the Russian language departments, figuring that her general interests (linguistics, psych, poli sci) could be served equally well anywhere. </p>
<p>She's not the only one who has made that mistake, however. I think we found out from some other disappointed student on an admitted students board. She is also interested in international relations, another major not offered at her school. </p>
<p>And her college did have linguistics, once. One of the best, actually. The crash and burn of the Columbia linguistics department (and subsequent, predictable demise of the major at Barnard) in the the late 1980's makes for verrry interesting reading. It turns out that "linguistics" is a major that is susceptible of many points of view -- and apparently a huge clash of egos among those who ascribe to different theories. </p>
<p>For what my daughter wanted, she probably would have wanted to study under Noam Chomsky (but she could have walked to the moon easier than winning admission to MIT with her dismal math scores) -- or George Lakoff, who is at Berkeley. But despite the lack of a major, she took a linguistics class her first semester and has decided it's not what she thought it would be in any case. Lakoff's books are easy reading in any case, and she has stolen my autographed copy of "Don't think of an Elephant", so she doesn't have to be in the man's class to get the benefit of his ideas. </p>
<p>Part of college is about exploring something new, and my daughter will have entered college with an inclination toward humanities/social sciences, and will emerge with a A.B. degree and a major in something that fits within humanities/social sciences. It just remains to be seen exactly what -- but post-grad career opportunities will probably be the same no matter what the major title. When it comes to hiring, no one really cares.</p>
<p>There is no guarantee of success no matter what school you attend. A lot depends on what you are studying. A business degree from Tufts is probably worth more than a History degree from Harvard. An accounting degree from SUNY Binghamton would probably get you a job quicker than a Theology degree from Princeton. But in reality in the big cities where the jobs are a degree from Cornell's Labor Relations School or U.Penns Wharton will 9 times out of ten get the job over a non-IVY.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion. I'm the father of a 17 yearold senior and we are completing the college selection process, and the central theme of this thread - "value" vs. prestige - has been much on my mind recently. </p>
<p>I told my son at the start of the process that money will NOT be the primary consideration. If we found a private college at $40K + and that was the only place for him, we would find a way to get it done. (We won't be eligible for aid, at least not until he has a sibling or two in college also.)</p>
<p>That being said, I've come to the conclusion that the pursuit of a prestige school is so ingrained in the psyche of most college-oriented parents that it clouds their thinking, making it very hard to seriously question the "value proposition" of spending close to $200K for a 4-year education at a private college. After much thought I have concluded that the value propositiion (in the absence of a nice chunk of grants or similar aid), for most private schools, is "broken". Here's why...</p>
<p>The cost of schools has grown at twice the rate of inflation for years, and it's impossible to know precisely why. At the same time, the endowments of many of these schools have exploded along with the stock market, and yet tuition continues to climb. It's pure supply and demand - demographics along with this feeling among many well-to-do families that they are somehow shortchanging their kids to not spring for the private school. I encourage parents to closely examine their motivations for spending top dollar, especially if their child is not clear on their academic path, etc. </p>
<p>One thing that bothers me a bit in this thread is the focus on a child's job prospects coming out of college. Spending an extra $100K for a marginal) or non-existent) advantage in getting a job at the very start of his/her career makes no economic sense. The kid will get a job, but that starting job is probably negligibly correleated to the success they will have over a career. THAT will depend on factors largely unrelated to where they went to college - personal skills, entrepruenuerial zeal (or lack), emotional maturity, work habits, personal discipline, etc. If those things are not in place, going to an Ivy as opposed to a good state school probably means little. I've interviewed college grads and MBAs who can't write a coherent paragraph. In that case, I don't much care where they went to school. </p>
<p>Back to the economics. If a kid goes to a good public college (and there are many), and the parents take the incremental $100K they would have spent on a private college and buy $100K of a stock market index fund upon graduation (at age 22) for the kid, if that money doubles every 10 years (at a rate of 7% increase per year) the kid will have $1.5 million dollars at age 60 or so. That, of course, is a purely hypothetical analysis, but underscores the point that $100K, in future dollar terms, is a ton of money when the opportunity cost is factored in. (If you don't like the investment analogy, how about putting a $50K downpayment on the kid's first house to get them started in home ownership?) </p>
<p>Now that's I've put forth my points, here's where we ended up in the college race. My son wants NROTC so he applied only to NROTC schools - Penn State, Villanova, UVA and Pitt. He is accepted to PS and Pitt, and we are waiting on the others. If he gets into UVA (a very long shot out-of-state) he will go there. Villanova? I don't like the value proposition at $45K or so. It looks like he will be at Penn State - a fine school with an excellent business school, the largest participating alumni group among ALL colleges, and a relative bargain at about $21K per year. A nice mix of qualities. He'll also have 15 credits in hand from AP tests, and coursework at the local Penn State campus while still in high school. </p>
<p>As for me? I went to Lehigh and loved it. My son would not consider it due to the NROTC factor and, sadly to say, I was not pushing him to applyat $45K per year - in my view a dubious value proposition. </p>
<p>My comments are in no way intended to tell anyone how they should approach this issue. Unless money is plentiful and not a consideration, however, I encourage parents to be courageous in evaluating the value proposition, and make a choice that feels honest to them in their unique set of circumstances. </p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>hvccgolf: Good thoughts.</p>
<p>The only good study ever done on college value (I forget who did it) concluded it is not where you went but where you got into that seemed to matter down the road. The students make the school not the other way around. Good kids are good and if they are good anough to go to MIT but go to a different school for money reasons they still excel and get into the top grad programs or do well in buisnees. As a teacher in a place where a large percentage of kids turn down the elite for full scholarships at other places I can say (at least in my sample ) that this is the case.</p>
<p>Fit is the most important factor. Unfortunately, marketing and angst of baby boomer parents who often rate their self worth by the name of the school their kids go to seems to dominate the issue. Havng said all that my own kid will be facing this issue in a few weeks. Our approach is to look at what place give him the best place to pursue your dreams. If that place gives no merit money and if he can demonstate why it is the best then we will figure out how to make it happen. I think though he is finding out that the top kids who go to schools other than MIT and Stanford are a pretty amazing bunch so even economic practicality might enter into his final choice. He is now talking about going with the money and going elite for graduate school. But we shall see.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
</p>
<p>One thing that bothers me a bit in this thread is the focus on a child's job prospects coming out of college. Spending an extra $100K for a marginal) or non-existent) advantage in getting a job at the very start of his/her career makes no economic sense. The kid will get a job, but that starting job is probably negligibly correleated to the success they will have over a career. THAT will depend on factors largely unrelated to where they went to college - personal skills, entrepruenuerial zeal (or lack), emotional maturity, work habits, personal discipline, etc. If those things are not in place, going to an Ivy as opposed to a good state school probably means little. I've interviewed college grads and MBAs who can't write a coherent paragraph. In that case, I don't much care where they went to school.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Exactly. Excellent point. Like I say, shell out money for professional school, grad school, etc.</p>
<p>(As an aside -- and not to derail this thread, but I think it's running out of steam anyway, no one has said anything new in a couple of pages notwithstanding hvccgolf's excellent summary of the economic issue -- what is it with kids and linguistics? It seems like half of all the HS kids on CC who don't want to be business majors, engineers, MDs, or some combination of the foregoing, say they want to study linguistics. Linguistics? Folks, there's a reason that lots of universities have essentially dropped their linguistics departments. It's not that fun, not that useful, and after people get a taste of it, not that popular. Also, not easy to study at a high level without strong math skills. I'm sure there are senior linguistics faculty -- including my sister-in-law -- who don't use math a lot, but I'll bet it's tough to get through a linguistics major or doctoral program without it.</p>
<p>So, yes, calmom's daughter should have checked to see whether her prospective college offered a linguistics major, if that's what she wanted. But on the whole she may be happier now than if she had gone to Cal for linguistics and then discovered that she didn't like it or couldn't do some aspects of it well.)</p>
<p>hvccgolf: Very interesting post, especially the economics lesson. Great points all.</p>
<p>JHS, you are correct on the math comment -- which is what my daughter found out when she took introductory linguistics, as well as why she does not want to major in linguistics any more and why she is lobbying the school to allow the linguistics course to fill her quantitative reasoning requirement. </p>
<p>However, just so you know, Columbia did not drop its linguistics department because linguistics had fallen out of favor. On the contrary, linguistics has gotten very popular these days because of the crossover with computational linguistics and artificial languages (for those with a technical bent), and neurolinguistics (every big college wants a brain lab, an fMRI machine, and they all love to study brain & language stuff). </p>
<p>Columbia's linguistic department died because of in-house political infighting. Basically, the chair of the department died in 1967, the remaining profs spent the next decade arguing with one another, Columbia ran into budget constraints, there came a time when there weren't any tenured profs left in the department, and so it was cut. Long detailed article here:
<a href="http://www.bwog.net/index.php?page=post&article_id=6%5B/url%5D">http://www.bwog.net/index.php?page=post&article_id=6</a></p>
<p>As it happens, my daughter is interested in studying Russian, and her interest in linguistics would tend toward slavic languages -- and the only profs at Columbia interested in reviving the linguistics major happen to be in slavic languages. So basically, if she wanted to pursue an interdisciplinary, linguistics-oriented major -- she really would be in the right place to do it after all. </p>
<p>If only it didn't involve so much math......</p>
<p>JHS -
"Linguistics? Folks, there's a reason that lots of universities have essentially dropped their linguistics departments. It's not that fun, not that useful, and after people get a taste of it, not that popular."</p>
<p>Also applicable to to search engines: linguistics / cs can be a lucrative combination.</p>
<p>Jaso9n2 -
"Like I say, shell out money for professional school, grad school, etc."</p>
<p>Funding tends to be more available for grad students in the sciences, much less so for professional school. This is an important distinction to make when planning. One size does not fit all.</p>