<p>Kamikazewave
Going to a specialized school like Caltech will offer you not just a peer group but research & internship possibilities that I don't think you'd find at UF. Still, there are many honors students at UF that took the free ride over going into debt for Penn, Duke, Emory, etc. This is a personal choice for families, based on many financial obligations.
If you have a chance, last week was career week at Caltech, where companies interview students for summer internships. It was also an interhouse party, where houses built a submarine, a castle, etc., in their courtyards. Check out the pictures.</p>
<p>There are very few schools which offer that much more to consider an addtional 100K in costs. As a student paying my own way, a State U was the only way and I am glad I made the choice. Engineering, as a career, puts very low value on prestige - so it seems like an intelligent decision.</p>
<p>Mr Payne, I agree. There are only a few schools where the high costs are likely to be worth it. I really cannot understand how so many mid-ranked private schools can find customers willing to pay their high costs.</p>
<p>This discussion can continue indefinitely. There is no right or wrong position on this issue: it depends upon a family's values/goals/income. Prestige and a "name school" is a priority for some and not for others. The cost of the education (tuition/room&board/books/travel expenses) is often the decision-maker for families. I agree with originaloog that other personal factors can influence a student's future success. Do you have a link to the study by Dale and Krueger?</p>
<p>I wonder if there are any studies tracking the trends with respect to honors colleges. It seems like many students are making this choice if they are rejected from their top schools (plenty of those these days) or if the family is having trouble coming up with the funds for an Ivy or top private. At the honors program my son attends, the grad school and job placement statistics are quite impressive. But many still dismiss the choice as "window dressing" - especially if the program is associated with a school with a good but not great reputation overall (like Penn State, UF or UMD -"your diploma still says ____").<br>
Last year, we had over 6 (from the 50 or so top 10% students at my son's ultra competitive suburban high school) make the in-state honors college choice - more then they've ever seen in the past. So far, it seems to be a good choice for my son (he loves it and has met some fabulous students).</p>
<p>IDMOM- Congrats on your daughter being in the honors program at UNC.</p>
<p>Cornell doesn't give out scholarships but you may have qualified for grant money depending on your EFC. As far as education Cornell's undergraduate research is second to none. It is a tough choice. I would say if your daughter doesn't go to graduate school or medical school she should have gone to the IVY. The other advantage of Cornell is that it is known world-wide not just regionally and its networking is unlimited as it is the largest of the Ivies.
Hopefully your daughter will continue her fine work and keep up the GPA.
UNC has a fine medical school as does Cornell. Hopefully she will have the problem of choosing again!</p>
<p>This consistent running thread that I find a little odd and somewhat amusing, is the real or hypothetical student consistently described here, the one who really needs to be around much more brilliant people than she, in order to intellectually soar. That this student wouldn't achieve much, or already "possess an informed sense of global citizenship," and is obviously not intrinsically challenged or motivated (never has been?), seems both sad and troublesome to me. Why is it, at least on this thread, that this real or hypothetical student is consistently the less smart, less intellectual, and obviously less intrinsically motivated, than her much more brilliant high-achieving peers at "private elite university?" </p>
<p>This, of course, makes me wonder (and worry) about those brilliant high-achievers at "private elite university." Perhaps these relatively non-achieving students, previously unaware of global issues and having never been around people/students from other parts of the world, who clearly need "smarter" people around them just to "back up opinions with accurate knowledge and insights" (or even have well-informed opinions), are really bringing down the level of those much brighter students at "private elite university." Since the peers at "private elite university," according to this thread, are consistently "better," "smarter," and more high-achieving--to leave them to soar in their own stratosphere might be fairer, kinder, and more generous, than to actually show up and drag them down, day after day after day.</p>
<p>On another note, I agree with an earlier poster (Danas, post #68) who pointed out that the OP's description of her son's choices, simply based on the title of this thread, is already somewhat biased. It does seem the decision has probably been made, at least in her mind.</p>
<p>Thanks 88. She would have received nothing from Cornell unfortunately. So for us, it made sense to take the scholarship money at UNC-CH and pocket the difference for grad or med school. (She's torn between the PhD in Psychology or MD in Psychiatry as a career choice...but at least she's narrowed her interests down to the 'brain' and behavior....lol!) </p>
<p>Another reason for UNC-CH is my husband's secret (not so) desire to convince her to abandon the sciences and apply to Kenan Flagler during her sophomore year. I don't see it happening, but at least the option is there.</p>
<p>Cornell is a wonderful school. Of all the Ivies, Cornell is the only one that really caught my d's interest. But when you know you are looking at least 8-10 years of school and you only qualify for merit, it does change the landscape a bit.</p>
<p>I let my daughter decide what school was best for her, regardless of the cost or prestige. Although we worried about those issues, we decided we'd do whatever it took to get her to the school of her choice. </p>
<p>As a result, she had a very open, broad look at her options. She is a very good student with good but not great test scores. We visited several top prestige architecture schools on the coasts and in the Midwest, including some expensive and prestigious private schools. We also visited and talked with architects. In the end she choose Ohio State, not for the prestige and not for the money. But because that was where she felt most at home. </p>
<p>Her original list of schools to visit was based on ranking by an industry publication - Design Intelligence. She added Ohio State on her own based on a comment by an architect who had taught at Princeton and who said he had excellent grad students from Ohio State. In the end, she wanted a Big Ten school and choose OSU over Penn State and Illinois (her home state u) because of the "fit and feel." </p>
<p>She recently got her scholarship offer from OSU and guess what, we'll be paying about the same as if she went in state. She'll also be part of an small nurturing architecture live/learn community, giving her a small school feel while enjoying the benefits of a big university. She's happy, and we're happy (especially mom who worried most about money).</p>
<p>So my anecdotal story is yes prestige may matter to some, but not always if you listen carefully to your son or daughter. I know we parents want the best for our kids, but in the end, it is their future, not ours. I know my D will get an excellent education in the style and manner she wants, and better yet, I won't have to sell the house to get it for her.</p>
<p>I check out the local debtor's prison</p>
<p>kamikaze--
I would not make a blanket statement that the FAFSA EFCs "are usually reasonable." Only you know what your budget is and where your money is going. True, if you are living in a huge house and driving a couple of Jags, you can certainly redirect money to college. On the other hand, if you have 4 children to educate, and if (say) private, faith-based elementary and/or HS is important to your family, your money is already committed to that. Likewise if you have relatives you are supporting or other set expenses that may not show up on FAFSA, that's your reality. This is where you teach your children to live within their means.</p>
<p>As with home mortgages, just b/c a lender says I can "afford" to spend a certain amount on housing, doesn't mean I should.</p>
<p>Jack, I think you're misinterpreting most of the posters (although you've summarized one of the clunkers pretty well.)</p>
<p>I'll bite. My kid was capable and lazy through middle school. Not a trouble-maker so he never got much attention from teachers-- but he did the minimum to get by. He chose (and we were supportive of the choice) a religious HS known for high standards, not a lot of PC stuff about feeling good when you get a B; a renowned faculty, most of whom had never taken a class in pedagogy in their lives, etc. He did well-- proved himself a person who liked to learn, was curious and loved to read, occasionally got inspired, clearly capable of great things when he was motivated to do so. Not someone who would rise to any challenge, but someone who needed tough standards, motivated classmates, etc. in order to do his best-- otherwise, his natural habitat seemed to be the couch.</p>
<p>Soo - do we encourage him to head off to State U (our own is a low-rated one) where with some effort (but not too much) he could be a top student... not THE top student, since clearly those kids, regardless of the school, are working very hard in addition to being capable... or do we encourage him to be in an environment where if he slacks off, the steamroller comes heading at him?</p>
<p>Other parents would have made a different choice and I'm sure they'd be justified in thinking they did the right thing. We encouraged the tougher environment, sensing that he'd excel if surrounded by supremely talented, hard-working kids, as he had in HS, and would coast merrily along if he'd been in a more heterogeneous environment as he had in middle school.</p>
<p>We have lots of neighbors whose kids are at the flagship campus of State U. Those kids are having a ball at college-- parties, football, road trips "just for the heck of it" on the weekends, spring break frolics in warm places with lots of tequila. I'm sure there are kids who can do that and manage to keep his grades up at MIT, but ours wasn't one of them. Spring breaks were spent catching up on paper-writing, problem-sets, over-due lab work, etc. Weekends were spent just plain keeping up. Fortunately.... he loved it, complained about lack of sleep but never complained about the work-load, and wasn't even envious of kids he knew who were having a less intense, more party-hearty college experience.... he just loved what he was doing.</p>
<p>So, I think you mischaracterize most of us who have encouraged a kids aspirations to an elite school even at financial hardship. My kid would have done fine anywhere.... but to be honest, I'm happy that I've unleashed on the world a kid who knows how to work his butt off when it's worth doing, and was humbled by being surrounded by truly brilliant kids in addition to the merely capable (like him....).</p>
<p>We had the luxury of being able to make this choice, and if our circumstances had been different, I'm sure he'd have made a wonderful opportunity out of wherever he ended up.</p>
<p>Jack, I had to chuckle a bit about the informed sense of global citizenship comment too. During the Scooter Libby jury selection there was an article about the questioning of prospective jurors at some highly regarded colleged like Swarthmore, Cornell, etc. and their utter lack of knowledge about current affairs, avoiding newspapers like the plague and the sophomoric responses to questions with answers peppered with phrases such as "like stuff".</p>
<p>Yes, that was quite impressive "stuff".</p>
<p>blossom: Thanks for sharing your story. I have to differ with you, however. I didn't misinterpret any of the posters. I'm confident I understood each and every post. </p>
<p>Part (only part) of my point was that there are students who exist out there who are intrinsically or inherently self-motivated, curious, aware, extremely bright people who will always seek out challenges for themselves--where ever they are--whether those challenges are found among a peer group, or in classes, or in endless opportunities. Perhaps your son, or others described here, need that external pressure to hold them to a "higher standard" and to push them to their true potential. If so, and that works positively for him, that's terrific. </p>
<p>I would just also like to add that your description of students' experience at your "flagship campus of State U" may be true, but it is certainly not typical of all flagship state university campuses. In fact, many public universities have far less grade inflation than do the Ivy's. So I think your characterization of one flagship public university feeds into a stereotype often perpetuated on CC, and is not typical of top public flagships, and certainly, most definitely, not typical of the one mentioned here by the OP. To truly believe that it is <em>only</em> at an "elite private university" that one can find himself surrounded by "supremely talented, hard-working" and "truly brilliant" kids, and be offered an intense, challenging work-load, is misguided. You are also mistaken/misguided to believe that only those who don't have "the luxury of being able to make this choice" would choose an excellent public flagship over an "elite private university."</p>
<p>
It's a question of intensity. At any college, one will find "supremely talented, hard-working' kids. At a prestigious college, the overwhelming majority will meet that description. What is prestige, anyway? Isn't it just a set of assumptions that accrue to someone who attends or graduates from a particular school? The reason that some schools are more prestigious than others is that there is a gating process for gaining admittance, and fewer spots for those who want to attend. It's a question of supply and demand. The students who graduate from an Ivy, MIT, Caltech, Stanford and other comparable schools have already been evaluated for academic potential and determined to be capable of reaching a high level of success. In future situations -- grad school apps, job interviews, fellowships etc -- they have a head start. So, to me, the question is really about what that boost up the ladder means.</p>
<p>blossom: Let me also add here, that my other point in that earlier post, which I think you may have missed, is . . . I think it's a real shame that those brilliant, self-motivated, high-achieving superstars at "elite private university" are expected (by parents of other students, it seems) to help motivate the "merely capable" kids into rising to the challenge of reaching their full potential. Goodness. That (and $200,000) is a lot to ask of those students.</p>
<p>Sure there are kids (and adults) who are highly self-motivated and for them the peer group may make little difference. Unfortunately, colleges must teach to the level of the students who attend. There is a big difference in teaching when dealing with average students at a State U and very bright kids at some of the country's most selective schools.</p>
<p>I do not think that you will ever get a consensus opinion on this comparison. People need a justification for spending $100,000 extra for their kids on Ivy League education and it is going to be very hard for them to admit that what they are buying among other thing is a brand name. My opinion is that beyond the top five university, you get into an area of diminshing return for you money for an undergraduate degree. If you can afford it, the decision is a lot easier. A similar argument can be made for the value of sending your kid into a top private high school, versus a top public high school. How well your kid does is ultimately upto him.</p>
<p>My father told me when we discussed my potential college costs in 1968 that the best gift parents can give a child is for the child to never to have the parents financially dependant on him or her. My parents died when I was in my thirties and were never dependant on me financially. I have lots of contemporaries who now have aged parents who do depend on them financially. My father told me the truth all those years ago.</p>
<p>He told my older brother and I that he would pay for any college or university we could get admitted to FOR 2 years. After that, he would only pay what it would cost at our state university. That was his reasonable solution to what people who literally can afford private/prestige colleges should do. </p>
<p>I went to Emory University for 2 years and finished at the University of Texas at Austin. At Emory, I got to experience students from East Coast prep schools and those there on scholarships because they had contractually agreed to teach school for a certain number of years. Some took advantage of the educational opportunities at both schools, some did not. It did not seem to make any difference whether it was the private or public institution. </p>
<p>FYI, the word at Emory back then was that it had the second highest suicide rate to that of Harvard. Kid in my freshman dorm hung himself rather than go home for X-mas break. Felt he did not live up to his parent's expectations.</p>
<p>My brother went to Tulane and finished all four years in private universities. He attended law school at UT-Austin immediately after college. I went to law school when I was 33. I'm not sure that I can agree to the "leg up" theory of "prestige" universities. Achieving fabulous grades, having sought out educational experiences while at school and meriting strong recommendations from those within a department get you into grad school. Those come from the fit of the student and the institution and the drive of that student. </p>
<p>From my perspective, </p>
<p>Thanks for the post Vick. I am going crazy here trying to justify $200K for an undergrad degree esp when there are no guarantees.</p>