<p>The same education you're getting for 150k, you could get for a dollar fifty in late fees at the library (good will hunting). Essentially, there are some mindblowing professors yes, but when it comes down to it, you'll learn the same material either way.</p>
<p>Do you agree, disagree? I could probably go look at some different threads, but I want direct reactions to that quote.</p>
<p>Disagree. Interaction with professors and fellow students are important.</p>
<p>Dis-a-gree! If you have will hunting smarts then yeah, eff formal education, but for the rest of us knuckle-heads that need someone to walk us through these complicated concepts, having good teachers and fellow students is a must. Plus, there aren't as many kick ass keggers in the public library.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The same education you're getting for 150k, you could get for a dollar fifty in late fees at the library (good will hunting). Essentially, there are some mindblowing professors yes, but when it comes down to it, you'll learn the same material either way.</p>
<p>Do you agree, disagree? I could probably go look at some different threads, but I want direct reactions to that quote.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I would argue that for many people, the premise of the question is invalid. Will Hunting said his quote to the arrogant long-haired Harvard guy to make the point that Harvard was overpriced. Well, the reality is that he was only referring to the sticker price of Harvard, and the fact is, plenty of people don't pay the full sticker price. Harvard is one of the most aggressive schools in the world when it comes to financial aid. Harvard guarantees a full ride in the form of grants to anybody who makes less than 40k, and a full ride (but not necessarily all grants) to anybody who makes less than 60k. When you consider the fact that the median US household income is less than 50k, that means that most American households would qualify for some form of fullride from Harvard. </p>
<p>So a more pertinent question to the majority of Americans is - would you rather study at the public library, or take a full ride from Harvard?</p>
<p>Totally disagree. The biggest influence is the interaction with other students. Teachers at my school are mostly facilatators.</p>
<p>Do you go to Philips Exeter?</p>
<p>"Well, I would argue that for many people, the premise of the question is invalid."</p>
<p>As much as Sakky would have you believe that nobody ever has to pay money to attend private schools, I'm pretty sure that the poster's hypothetical question was meant to get people thinking about the value or school, not to advertise for Harvard. Sakky, do you have the data of what percent of Harvard students are recieving full rides? If so please post. If the median income is 50k, that should mean that a good 70-80% of all harvard students are getting in on this great deal, right?</p>
<p>The other (and better I might add!) Phillips, Andover.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As much as Sakky would have you believe that nobody ever has to pay money to attend private schools, I'm pretty sure that the poster's hypothetical question was meant to get people thinking about the value or school, not to advertise for Harvard. Sakky, do you have the data of what percent of Harvard students are recieving full rides? If so please post. If the median income is 50k, that should mean that a good 70-80% of all harvard students are getting in on this great deal, right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course not, because as we have all agreed, the average Harvard student is quite well off. The fact of the matter is, not many poor people can amass the qualifications necessary to get into Harvard. That's a simple fact of life. The richer you are, the more you can afford to live in a better neighborhood with a better schooling system. Then there is the cultural aspect of it. If your parents are lazy and unmotivated (and hence poor) , then you will probably be lazy and unmotivated too. </p>
<p>However, the point is, if you happen to be one of those guys who is poor and yet highly qualified, then that full ride from Harvard is quite attainable. After all, the quote came from Will Hunting. I would argue that a guy like that who is highly qualified yet poor would be highly eligible to get that free ride from Harvard.</p>
<p>"If your parents are lazy and unmotivated (and hence poor) , then you will probably be lazy and unmotivated too."</p>
<p>I'm sure those people working 80 hour weeks to support their families can see the irony of a guy that has the time to make 1,791 posts on an internet college site calling them lazy.</p>
<p>"the average Harvard student is quite well off...That's a simple fact of life"</p>
<p>Then why are you even bringing it up? I can offer people a trillion dollars to work for me for a week, but if I don't hire anyone for the job then its not that great of a deal, is it?</p>
<p>"After all, the quote came from Will Hunting"</p>
<p>So what? He didn't ask if it would've been wise for a fictional character to atten harvard.</p>
<p>Actually, I do agree with this -- to an extent. I got my high school education courtesy of my public library, and I learned far, far more than most of my peers did. I think I'm one of the rare ones, however, who could benefit from that type of arrangement.</p>
<p>What you end up lacking the most is necessary interaction with peers, encouragement and confirmation of accuracy from teachers/professors, and normal socialization in general. The absence of those factors can have a devastating affect on the student. I did fine socially in high school because of community programs, continued peer involvement, and the occasional credit-free course through my community college, but I can't imagine doing that for college. The typical person cannot be a recluse and still function normally and productively in society.</p>
<p>One of the smartest people I know didn't have any education past 3rd grade, and one of the least intelligent holds a Ph.D. Take from that what you want.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sure those people working 80 hour weeks to support their families can see the irony of a guy that has the time to make 1,791 posts on an internet college site calling them lazy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not too many people that I know that are working 80 hours a week are what I would call poor. In fact, most people that I know that work like that are investment bankers, consultants, or doctors, and they are pretty darn well off. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there are plenty of people on welfare who work zero hours a week are are poor. Yet I don't know too many people who make a lot of money by sitting around and not working at all. </p>
<p>
[quote]
the average Harvard student is quite well off...That's a simple fact of life"</p>
<p>Then why are you even bringing it up? I can offer people a trillion dollars to work for me for a week, but if I don't hire anyone for the job then its not that great of a deal, is it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, I know 2 people who are California state residents who've gotten better deals from Harvard than they did from Berkeley. If you're good enough, and your income is low enough, you will get the deal. If you're not good enough, well, I don't know what to tell you. Nobody should blame Harvard for you not being good enough. Whoever's fault it is, it's not Harvard's fault that you're not good enough. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"After all, the quote came from Will Hunting"</p>
<p>So what? He didn't ask if it would've been wise for a fictional character to atten harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He asked whether a HYPOTHETICAL person should pay a small fortune to attend Harvard. I am questioning is that how realistic is that hypothetical person. After all, many if not most people who end up paying full freight to go to Harvard are so rich that they don't care. Those that are not rich can often times get an excellent financial deal. The only people that are left are those people who are too rich to get a good package, too poor not to care about getting a good package - but let's not pretend that these people are the majority. </p>
<p>And besides, even if you do belong to that group of people, get a merit scholarship at a place like Caltech or Duke. That's what my brother did. He didn't pay to go to Caltech, in fact, Caltech paid him. If he can get that, other people can too.</p>
<p>"Not too many people that I know that are working 80 hours a week are what I would call poor."</p>
<p>I don't doubt that the people that YOU know aren't poor, but let me tell you that they exist, and more often then not they aren't i-bankers. I hope this whole post was just very, very dry humor, or else it makes you look incredibly out of touch with reality to say that the only people that work long hours are "people that are pretty darn well off."</p>
<p>"Like I said, I know 2 people who are California state residents who've gotten better deals from Harvard"</p>
<p>Well, hold the phone! I guess that solves the problem. Sakky knows two whole people that paid less at harvard than they would have at berkeley. Assuming he only knows four people, his argument is now solid as a rock, if not then his example doesn't mean much.</p>
<p>"That's what my brother did. He didn't pay to go to Caltech, in fact, Caltech paid him. If he can get that, other people can too."</p>
<p>Consider it noted that everone knows your brother's story. Congratulate him for me. As much as hearing one story convinces me that this is the way it works for everyone, if you could post data that proves that your bro's case was the norm and not the exeption I'd appreciate it. Thanks.</p>
<p>One of the smartest people I know, a true intellectual, claims to have received his education at the public library. Of course he had degrees and an enviable number of life experiences, but his point is that we ultimately teach ourselves.</p>
<p>if you're not smart enough to learn the material in a lecture, and need more interaction with profs, then go to a private...=). Also, a lot of the privates can't have the array of professors that a public can. CalTech's profs are almost all purely theoretical. Berkeley has those professors as well, but is big enough to have practical application ones too. This gives you more choices in learning and research opportunities. </p>
<p>I think it depends on which colleges you apply to. If you can get into a great public institution like Virginia for 22K, you may want to consider that over an institution similar that is a private institution that is 29K, like Miami FL. But private institutions offer more scholarships and aid than public institutions to offset the high tuition costs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Not too many people that I know that are working 80 hours a week are what I would call poor."</p>
<p>I don't doubt that the people that YOU know aren't poor, but let me tell you that they exist, and more often then not they aren't i-bankers. I hope this whole post was just very, very dry humor, or else it makes you look incredibly out of touch with reality to say that the only people that work long hours are "people that are pretty darn well off."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't doubt for a minute that there are people out there who work long hours who are still poor. However, what is undeniable is the the more hours you work, the less likely you will be poor, and that the poorest of our society tend to be the people who don't work at all, either because they can't find work or that they don't want to find work. Surely it should surprise no one to discover that the less hours you work, the less money you will tend to have. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"Like I said, I know 2 people who are California state residents who've gotten better deals from Harvard"</p>
<p>Well, hold the phone! I guess that solves the problem. Sakky knows two whole people that paid less at harvard than they would have at berkeley. Assuming he only knows four people, his argument is now solid as a rock, if not then his example doesn't mean much.</p>
<p>"That's what my brother did. He didn't pay to go to Caltech, in fact, Caltech paid him. If he can get that, other people can too."</p>
<p>Consider it noted that everone knows your brother's story. Congratulate him for me. As much as hearing one story convinces me that this is the way it works for everyone, if you could post data that proves that your bro's case was the norm and not the exeption I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously these people are not the 'norm'. But so what? Why are you obsessed with talking about the 'norm'? The fact is, the vast majority of Americans will never attend a selective college. A large percentage of Americans never attend college at all, and of those that do, plenty attend only community college or no-name state schools. Hence, that small fraction of Americans who could even think of blowing 150k on a college education are not the norm, as per the OP's question. So if these people are not the norm, then what's so wrong about talking about other people who are not the norm? The fact is, we've NEVER been talking about normal people.</p>
<p>You know I'd thought I'd seen the epitome of ignorance on this message board when someone said rich people send a higher percentage of their children to college simply because the rich were more intelligent. That post however, was superceded (so to speak) when I read that poor people struggle financially because they are "lazy and unmotivated." Kudos to you sakky. </p>
<p>It's probably news to you that two people working full-time for minimum wage will be just barely above the poverty level for a family of four (~$18k/yr). Most have to take second jobs just to make ends meet. Lazy and unmotivated indeed.</p>
<p>I never said the rich were more intelligent. However, I think it is obvious to anybody that SAT scores, for example, are heavily correlated with socioeconomic status. So are high school grades. The simple fact is, the richer you are, the better a school district you will tend to be in, the more educated your parents will tend to be, the more your parents will tend to emphasize education, and the greater opportunities you will have to get a better education. Is that surprising to anybody?</p>
<p>Does that mean the rich are more 'intelligent'? I didn't say that. But it is clearly true that the rich tend to be far more academically prepared. Is that a surprise to anybody? </p>
<p>Furthermore, are you seriously trying to say that there are no poor people who are not poor precisely because they are lazy and unmotivated? Are you serious? I recognize that it's a harsh statement, but it's true. The fact is, the less that your parents work, the less money you will tend to have. </p>
<p>Let's get out of the utopic paradise that some of you apparently view the poor to be in, and why not take a drive to the ghetto sometime on a regular workday. You will see plenty of able-bodied men loitering around doing nothing. You know what I'm talking about, even if you don't want to admit it. Some people just don't want to work, and that's why they're poor.</p>
<p>Now of course does that mean that ALL poor people are poor because they're lazy and unmotivated? Of course not. I never said that. But what I am saying is that a lot of poverty can indeed be explained by a lack of work ethic and responsibility. Not all of it, but a lot of it. After all, again, think of those ghetto guys sitting around doing nothing every day. You can't tell me that laziness and irresponsibility doesn't have something to do with poverty. </p>
<p>Some of you might say that these guys are sitting around because there are no jobs. Oh really? Think of it this way. Thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants cross the border into the country every day. Why? To find jobs. So think about what that means. These illegal immigrants come here, most of whom can't speak English, don't understand American culture, are traveling hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles away from home, and yet they are somehow able to find jobs in the US. And these guys in the ghetto can't find anything? Or is it that they don't want to find anything? You tell me. </p>
<p>Finally, you talk about minimum-wage jobs. So, in the ghetto near where I live, I've noticed that the local McDonalds has had a help-wanted sign up for the past few months. Yet, I still see the same ghetto guys sitting around every day doing nothing. If those guys were really looking for a job, why didn't they just sign up at McDonalds? Do you even think they tried? In fact, I was in that McDonalds and asked the manager whether they were able to fill the job and she said that nobody has even bothered to apply yet. So you tell me what's happening.</p>
<p>I never said you said the rich were more intelligent, just that your statement surpassed that one in its absurdity. I only need two statistics to refute your nonsense.</p>
<p>2003 poverty rate - 12.5%
2003 unemployment rate at its peak (June) - 6.4%</p>
<p>Keep in mind the high unemployment rate had a lot to do with outsourcing and the loss of non-minimum wage jobs. Many of the unemployed were educated and not looking to work at McDonalds for $5.15 an hour.</p>
<p>So it seems like a lot of poor people are working. Guess your observation of the "ghetto people" near you isn't exactly representative of an entire demographic.</p>