<p>^^Probably true, but MomLive’s point is well taken.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If these families are as wealthy as you say, 40K vs. 20K per year for private vs. public college probably isn’t a factor. Another 20K per year for tuition wouldn’t make a bit of difference - the fuel for the private jet is more than 20K per year, and I would guess that they value their kid’s education more. These people are choosing the U of M because they prefer it for a variety of reasons.</p>
<p>That may be true, but the person that makes that assertion in the OP’s original statement most likely has an under achieving student that wouldn’t get into an Ivy school in 100 years. And I think that’s where the OP is coming from (you can tell she was miffed by this person’s comment). (cross posted, this is in response to Olive007 post #40)</p>
<p>I will add, who says because you are wealthy, and come from a prep school that probably costs as much as a top private college you are going to be accepted into a top 20 school?</p>
<p>Some comments:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I think it is true that overall, there is a higher concentration of students from wealthy backgrounds at private colleges. However, higher wealth does not necessarily correlate to a difference in occupation, social class or status of the parents, and/or potential future job or social networking opportunities. The parents’ wealth could have been acquired in a number of different ways – merely knowing or being friends with someone who is wealthy does not necessarily represent increased opportunity for the friend, other than the likelihood of occasionally being invited out for some nice meals. (I speak from experience: my d. has raved to me about the wonderful, expensive restaurant some kid’s parents took them to, so its nice to have rich friends – but as she nears graduation, she is flat broke and the rich friends do not represent job prospects).</p></li>
<li><p>The downside of the greater concentration of wealth and privilege is that the student from a more modest background may feel alienated, and may find that their circumstances make it harder for them to make friends – and they may naturally gravitate towards other students from similarly modest backgrounds. You can simultaneously have a concentration of many wealthy students along with a class-divide and de facto segregation of those who come from working class backgrounds. The financial differences as well as differing attitudes and expectations about spending money can be a driving force leading to such segregation. (It’s hard for a student who has to work one or two campus jobs and watch every dime to comfortably socialize with free-spending students receiving generous allowances from home).</p></li>
<li><p>I’d note that there are also many opportunities for networking and forming connections through public universities. While the concentration of students from wealthy backgrounds is less, those students are still there – and the public university setting might be more of an equalizer and provide greater opportunities to socialize. That is, there are enough rich kids living in dorms at private universities that they have no particular need to reach out to and include the kids from poorer backgrounds; whereas, as a minority among a more dominant “middle class” culture, the wealthier kids at public universities might be more likely to become close friends with kids from different backgrounds. Of course that would depend on the culture and policies of each college – some universities create de facto opportunities for class segregation through differentially priced housing options. But the point is, campus culture is more likely to play a part in the connections the student forms than the mere presence or concentration of wealth.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I know more than a few heavily indebted recent grads and more than a few heavily indebted parents who have for some time openly regretted their misguided and expensive thirst for prestige. Some of the stalwarts have decided to double-down on their bad bets, (talking majors here), with grad school, with most going to State Us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is true and a very legitimate reason for going to a particular school. If being the ‘top’ in certain fields is your goal. And it’s okay for a particular student to have that goal. As long as they understand the sacrifices they will probably make in terms of time and relationships to get there, then I would say definitely go for the ‘best’ school you can get into.</p>
<p>For the average person, who just wants to made a decent living doing something they enjoy, it’s not necessary to have those high-level contacts. In fact, the majority of congress didn’t attend a Top 10 school nor did the majority of highly paid doctors, lawyers, engineers, business owners, etc.</p>
<p>As a CPA, my husband has several multimillionaire clients. Not a one of them attended a ‘top’ school. Most of them attended the State U or a small private ‘no-name’ LAC. My husband is also an investment broker who has done quite well - attended the State U.</p>
<p>I think a lot of it depends on the student’s career goals. Although, I sometimes get the feeling here at CC that is really about the parents aspirations for the kids - not so much about the students own career goals. Like my son’s friend whose parents are pushing him into a career that he is probably not suited for - those parents are probably in for a lot of disappointment.</p>
<p>Anyway, seems like we have this same ‘argument’ over and over again at CC in various forms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I think there’s a lot of Wisconsin influence here in Chicago, and recognition of it as a very good school (often second only to Michigan, and seen as better than U of Illinois).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but I don’t see lots of NU or U Chicago grads helping one another in Texas, so the same difference as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Preach it, sister! There is this weird little bubble on CC that thinks that economic success can only be had by having a certain degree. It’s like they’re completely unaware of people who became successful by owning small businesses and managing them well, being really good in sales, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Higher wealth doesn’t necessarily mean the kids are any smarter, either. One of the wealthiest families I know, with an impeccable society pedigree, sent their kids to elite boarding schools and then to Hollins and a “moderate” state flagship Nothing against those schools, but they weren’t Ivy powerhouses. But neither were their daughters. They didn’t need to be. They had trust funds and if they wanted to spend 4 years having fun and getting a workable degree, why not? They hardly “suffered” by not going to HYP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, it’s not a factor. If the kid doesn’t want to GO to HYP et al, what’s the point in pushing him? Especially if he’s just going to go into dad’s business anyway.</p>
<p>I’m thinking of another family I know, where the grandfather had started a company that got bought out for $40 MM. The father ran the business – if he had a degree, it was third-tier state u. His kids went to whatever state u’s they wanted – I think one went to UCol-Boulder for the skiing, the other to Mizzou. They didn’t have dreams of Ivy-covered buildings in verdant settings and discussing philosophy while sitting out on the quad. They wanted to go to college to have fun, hang out with friends, get a respectable degree to check the box, and go into business for dad. Which is what they did. These were “good” kids – they weren’t goof-offs, they weren’t into drugs, they didn’t squander their father’s money, they applied themselves to their studies – but they weren’t brainiacs and they weren’t into academics, so a fancy private u simply wasn’t a dream they ever had in the first place.</p>
<p>I started off at Syracuse ($45,000/year private school) and transferred to UNC-Chapel Hill. I’d wager that there are just as many wealthy kids per capita at UNC as Syracuse, if not even more. There are a ton of elite and very wealthy people at UNC-we’re talking millionaires here. I don’t think public/private has anything to do with it; school quality is probably the most important factor.</p>
<p>I worked at a large international company headquartered in Chicago and all of the recent grads were from U Chicago, the Ivies, MIT, and Williams - Williams was really big, for some reason. I never encountered anyone else from Wisconsin.</p>
<p>Where do the C- students of the very wealthy usually attend where they can network with other rich ne’er do wells? I can think of a few places, but I dare not say…</p>
<p>I don’t think the very wealthy or the sons/ daughters of the very wealthy work at large international companies. (signed, someone who is neither very wealthy, the daughter of anyone very wealthy, and worked for a large internat’l company for years!). </p>
<p>The C students of the very wealthy go wherever the heck they want to, really. They don’t need a degree.</p>
<p>Actually, Pizzagirl, they do work in international companies. Many, many very wealthy people raise their children to be well educated and successful - and they expect them to have relevant and important work experience. They don’t want the family fortune squandered, as some on this thread seem to think.</p>
<p>Even those who perhaps have not passed along great academic credentials still expect their kids to attend a reasonably acceptable college. At the very least, it doesn’t sound good to tell friends at the next cocktail party that “Jimmy isn’t college material.”</p>
<p>I agree with Olive007. Many of D1’s friends parents expect them to work for top tier firms out of college, preferably a global company They don’t necessary want their kid to come work in the family business right away. They may pull a few strings to help their kid to get the first job, but it’s hard when a kid has low GPA or not going to a target school. I know very few kids who work for their parents right out of school.</p>
<p>I think you will find wealthy kids and different social circles at all colleges and universities. I am sure there are a few privates where kids feel they are more elite - some because of money and some because of the name of the school. We are probably sending our S1 to a private, but only because we feel he needs a smaller environment. If he makes future networking connections then that is a bonus, but our goal for our kids is for them to be happy, successful and HUMBLE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not believe this is necessarily true. Yes, for key economic positions you will find a lot of Harvard and MIT. But for other positions, the networking is done through the political operations, not in college. That is why so many of Obama’s key advisors were one way or another related to Illinois and Chicago, and lot of Bush people came out of Texas, and a lot of Clinton from Arkansas. Yes, in grad school there is a lot of Ivy, but I think you will find undergrad all over the map.</p>
<p>Rahm Emmanuel from Sarah Lawrence, Hillary Clinton from Wellesley, Napolitano from Santa Clara, Gates from William and Mary and Georgetown (and the Bush administration). Exactly how did these people network in undergrad school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of my son’s friend’s father passed away several years ago. The father owned his own company and had millions. The company was sold upon his death.</p>
<p>His will stipulated that his son must get a degree from 4 year college before he inherits one cent. This particular kid is not the world’s greatest student and I could see him opting out of college knowing that he will inherit millions in a few years. That Dad (who was a friend of mine) was a very smart businessman. He had a terminal illness and knew he wasn’t going to be around long enough to see his son graduate HS.</p>
<p>The Dad, by the way, went to the State U.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True - for politics they say it’s better to go to the State U because you want a lot of contacts in your state. Plus, you don’t want to give the impression of being an ‘intellectual elite’ :)</p>
<p>I actually think most people network through undergrad more. My brother would say he went to Cornell before he would say he went to Dartmouth for MBA. Likewise, my sister would say she went to Dartmouth before she would say she went to Stanford for law. Most of us have stronger ties with our college friends, maybe it’s a time when we were freer and happier (or more innocent). It is also not surprising that most schools only count legacy for undergraduate.</p>