<p>1990dad, good points. However, I think I have seen many on this forum use this type of arugement: "one does not have to go to Yale law to have a successful and happy life. "</p>
<p>
[quote]
The OP assumes the student pays for his college education. It really should the parents role to pay for their children's college education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The value of the investment is not based on whether the parent pays for it or not. A bad investment is a bad investment regardless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many parents invest in their children's education by sending them to private school since kindergarten or moving to more expensive districts so that they can get access to better public schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. There is a good name for these parents: S T U P I D</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is there ANY empirical data which supports the proposition that, in monetary terms, paying substantially more to attend a highly selective college or university is a good investment?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course not. It's generally a horrible investment. There are certainly exceptions. For example, I'm sure attending Wharton undergrad is generally an exception....however, even then the wharton students will be placed in jobs that graduates of top public schools will also land.</p>
<p>i know a person who took 80k in loans to do his undergrad from MIT, ended up with a great job and repayed all the amount in 27 months!! Now i dont think doing that is a particularly bad idea, or is it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
i know a person who took 80k in loans to do his undergrad from MIT, ended up with a great job and repayed all the amount in 27 months!! Now i dont think doing that is a particularly bad idea, or is it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I assume you are talking about attending MIT (as opposed to repaying his debt in 27 months, which is really a function of his risk preference), and if that is the case there really aren't enough details in your post to fully evaluate this investment.</p>
<p>re #62 ^^^I don't think it's stupid to spend the money on either private schools or a better school district to ensure that one's child has a good foundational education. Mind you, you have to balance what's a good enough k-12 education with what you can afford. We didn't move into the most expensive district in our county, but we did move to one we considered good enough.</p>
<p>It ain't all about the money.......
And
[quote]
So, for my analysis, the choices are GSU(free), say Emory with $80k in tuition loans, or say, Princeton with $100k in tuition loans.
[/quote]
Not a great analysis. Princeton has a no-student-loan policy, and offers FA for parents with incomes up to $200,000 (or somewhere abouts there). Princeton is a bargain - unless you have buckets of money and can pay full-freight. Either way, princeton students should end up debt-free.</p>
<p>I think the greatest benefit of attending an HYP type school goes to the average performers. That group will get a little bit of a boost from school prestige IMO because they will get the benefit of the doubt moreso than a kid from a less prestigious institution. However, the top performing students coming out of respectable programs, even among the lower tiers, do just fine without having the luster of school prestige to propel them along. </p>
<p>Also, I have talked with many grad school admissions people, and perhaps it's the company line they are giving me, but I've never gotten a single one to admit that the undergraduate school is a critical factor. They do say that what they know about the school --- issues like grade inflation, rigor of certain majors, emphasis on writing, etc. --- are considered, but are not the most important determinant for admission. What they indicated that I think is really important is that they have a sense of the best undergraduate programs in ways having nothing to do with consumer ranking reports. For example, they know a lot more about the quality of those little no name LACs than the general public, and in the world of academia, many of those schools have a far more favorable reputation than what popular rankings reveal to the general public. Some of those no name schools, they say, especially the ones with a clear emphasis on critical thinking, writing, exposure to interdisciplinary studies, etc. produce some of their most successful graduates. </p>
<p>Therefore, while I do think selection of the undergraduate school is very important from a quality standpoint, I strongly disagree that school quality and the potential success of ts graduates have much to do with consumer ranking reports or prestige. Moreover, if you accept that perspective, there are some great bargains to be had out there that don't require taking on huge debt, or depleting life savings to fund.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, you ignore the fact that any person who can be admitted to HYPS or MIT can attend a variety of perfectly respectable colleges tuition free.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am very aware of it. At HYPSM, the yields hover between 70% and 80% and most kids who do not matriculate at one often end up at another. These schools loose minuscule amounts of students to state schools and even to less selective private schools with full rides. But in the end, very few students admitted to HYPSM choose not to enroll for financial reasons. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Is there ANY empirical data which supports the proposition that, in monetary terms, paying substantially more to attend a highly selective college or university is a good investment?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is lot of empirical evidence that highly selective colleges offer tangible advantages in education to their students which in the end impact their choices in regards to graduate or professional schools, access to jobs and lifetime present value. </p>
<p>An very good study of the trade-off involved in choosing a school base don debt burden can be found in the study by Avery and Hoxby</p>
<p>Should</a> Financial Aid Packages Affect Students' College Choices?</p>
<p>
[quote]
An essential trade-off lies at the heart of the role merit aid plays in the college selection process of competitive students and their parents: in return for accepting more merit-based aid, a student must generally accept a reduction in the "human capital investment" (e.g., spending per student, expenditures on instruction, library services, knowledge "spillover" from peers) made on his or her behalf at the college chosen, or a reduction in the "consumption resources" (e.g., food, housing, recreational facilities, concert opportunities) available for him or her to enjoy at the college chosen.</p>
<p>Put another way, students who allow larger financial aid offers to unduly influence their choice to attend a "lesser" university generally must accept an accompanying trade-off of "less resource-rich college environments" and/or "less peer-rich environments" (less qualified, less inquisitive, less well-connected peers).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do the benefits of greater human capital investment, greater consumption resources, knowledge spillover from peers translate into greater lifetime present value.</p>
<p>-Access to graduate and professional schools: The most selective private schools are disproportionately represented in the top professional schools in medicine, law and business. While GPA and test scores matter, resource rich colleges can invest far more in preparing their students for admission to the most selective professional schools than their less well endowed competitors. Even for graduate school, in fields such as engineering or science, there is substantial advantage to the often better prepared students from top private colleges. If you want to go to Harvard for grad school, it is infinitely easier if you are an undergrad at HYPSM or another highly selective college. </p>
<p>-Access to the the best paying jobs and careers straight out of college and later: If you are interested in working in consulting or finance straight out of college, many of the top firms recruit nearly exclusively from a very small group of colleges. If you want to work for Google or Microsoft, again, there is a huge advantage if you come from certain colleges where these firms focus their recruitment efforts. even much later in your career, there is a subtantial advantage to graduates from certain schools for key positions in government, academia or industry. </p>
<p>-Access to capital to start your own business: It is much easier to raise capital for an enterpreneurial venture, especially in technology as a graduate of MIT or Stanford as opposed to virtually any other school. Venture investors only fund a tiny percentage of the proposals they receive and will more likely bet on a founder who is a graduate from these two schools because of their extensive history at starting businesses.</p>
<p>The goodwill that the most selective colleges have built into their brands is not unlike that of major corporations. This is very different from just having a good USNWR ranking. Some highly ranked schools do not have a strong brand. Some less selective schools have very strong brands. With endowments in the billions some of the colleges have assets comparable to large corporations. In the same manner that individuals and corporations may trust a GE, IBM or Toyota for the quality of their products, so do they trust the "quality" of a college graduate from one of the more selective colleges. You may end up with a lemon from Toyota as you may with a Princeton graduate, but the risk involved is much less. The top colleges have large job placement departments with alumni connections at most major firms and graduate schools. </p>
<p>Anybody can succeed financially, even without a college degree, as much anecdotal evidence will show. But in an increasingly competitive environment, particularly when the economy may not be growing as rapidly, most institutions will seek to minimize risk. Graduates from top colleges as a group, simply represent less of a risk. Over the coming decade, the effect of a strong "brand" may be more important than ever.</p>
<p>I've seen way to much irrational behavior involved with people moving to good school districts, to the point that they move well before their kids are even in school (or before they even have kids). Then, once their kids are school age they send their kids to private school anyways.</p>
<p>Also, many have the idiotic opinion that good school district = higher real estate appreciation, and furthermore they often don't realize that the best school may actually be in the lesser school district.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The most selective private schools are disproportionately represented in the top professional schools in medicine, law and business. While GPA and test scores matter, resource rich colleges can invest far more in preparing their students for admission to the most selective professional schools than their less well endowed competitors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Undergraduate programs prepare their students for graduate business school? I think not. If you want to go to a top business school, you need good work experience which you can get by graduating from any decent large public university, and in some cases you can get despite graduating from po-dunk U.</p>
<p>I never said you you could not get into a top business school if you graduated from Podunk U. I just said that graduates from the most selective colleges are disproportionately represented in those business schools, which is a fact. I am fully aware that these schools don't hire students straight out of college. Not surprinsingly, the graduates from the most selective colleges, unlike most other college graduates can get professional experience at some of the leading investment and consulting firms, often a ticket to a top MBA program. They also have the advantage of a well connected alumni network so that they can present the strongest job experience profiles when they finally apply and belonging to colleges with a strong feeder history to the best business schools. A major benefit of top colleges is precisely that first job opportunity and much of a future career builds upon it. In that sense, these colleges do help prepare their students for business school. </p>
<p>With med schools and law schools the benefit is even more significant. From medical school to residency to fellowship, there is a definite bias towards picking graduates from elite colleges, especially as many heads of departments graduated from the same schools. The selection process is highly incestuous and not necessarily fair but it is definitely present.</p>
<p>threedaysgrace,
I tried to send you a message but your maiblx was full. Clear some message and I will send it.</p>
<p>Of course going undergrad to Harvard, Yale, Priceton, etc. increases your chances of getting into the top law schools of the Ivy League and where you go does matter. The issue is whether you should go deep into debt to do so. I believe in getting the very best education you can get because generally you only get one shot at it. However, going to Harvard Law doesn't make sense for everyone who wants to be an attorney if they have to borrow the undergrad money and the law school money. I would do it because that is our philosophy. However will it pay off incrementally? Maybe on Wall Street but not on main street. If I were young and starting over, I would go to the very best university I could get in, go to the best law, medical or business school I could get into because they have the best/most recruiting and then set it up to pay it back over as many years as necessary to be able to survive and then accellarate the payments to get it paid. Over the course of a life time, it will pay off because it would open new doors, you will meet more influential people and always have job opportunities. I have told my son many times, I cannot give him a million dollar trust fund, but I will give him the finest education possible so that he will have an opportunity to create his own secure future.</p>
<p>The general bias in all of CC is always that it is a waste to take on debt, and this really irks me because it is not always true.</p>
<p>What this eventually boils down to is simple economics--how much value do you place on the future? Are you willing to take on loans now in order to land a higher-ranked starting job, which leads to faster promotion, and higher income? It's just like high-school students who choose to sacrifice their time to study for hours so that they can go to a top school. Most people are saying that there is no empirical data that supports going to a top-ranked school...that is preposterous, to say the least. If going to a top-ranked school gave you only the same opportunities that you had at a public school, no one would go to a private school.</p>
<p>There are certain industries where your app will be thrown out if you're not among the top choices for schools. It's also ridiculous to say that law, one of the most prestige-driven professions, takes no bearing whatsoever of the undergraduate institution. The fact that they consider grade deflation, etc is basically implying that they do obviously consider the undergraduate school.</p>
<p>And also, if you want empirical data, look at median salaries (obviously for applicable areas) in the top schools compared to others. </p>
<p>In the end, it comes down to the individual student, and can be largely situational. Taking on 200k for an art major might not be the best idea, but taking on 100k or less at a top school in a technical, medical, legal, or similar field could be potentially a really worthwhile investment. Every year, records keep getting broken with the amount of students going to college; just going to a university no longer distinguishes you from the crowd anymore.</p>
<p>I was once of the same loan-phobic sentiment, and I regret the choices that I made because of it.</p>
<p>RacinReaver- thanks for the tip about playing one college against another to get more $$. </p>
<p>A general comment, I really think going to your own state U, and making good grades will leave you in a good position for grad school. Save the money for a house instead of college debt. The private universities would like you to think differently. After all that is there allure. A friend of mine went to U of Florida, got into Georgetown Law School, and is now working for a big firm in NYC.</p>
<p>I have quite a few friends who are professors and professionals who teach, hire, work, etc... in many industries. Many of these have gone to many of the "Prestigious" schools. At one time or another, this topic comes up a lot. "Was it worth going to that school". One thing just about all of them said was; "If you're planning on going to graduate school, then where you went for your undergraduate means very little". Future employers will be looking at the "Highest" level of education.</p>
<p>They also agreed that if you were going to be in the "Main stream" employment of your field; e.g. business, IT, engineering, etc...; then that too isn't worth the difference in tuition and expenses of going to HYP...etc... compared to State "U" or other less expensive schools.</p>
<p>The seem to all agree that if your field of interest is specialized or your employment interests are towards the elite employers/locations; e.g. Wall Street for business, MIT high tech and specialized engineering, etc.... Then the undergraduate school can be of great significance.</p>
<p>Generally speaking; it is not worth going into debt or even spending the kind of money many of the "Elite" schools charge for your undergraduate degree unless you can almost guarantee the ROI to be within a couple of years.</p>
<p>As far as pre-college schools; moving to districts for the purpose of schools; paying for private schools; etc... Unless money isn't an issue for you or you are in an area where there are some well known "TERRIBLE SCHOOLS"; e.g. academically, crime, safety, etc... then that is indeed a silly waste of money. If you want to live in a particular neighborhood and they happen to have a great school, that's one thing. To move there for the sole reason that you think that particular private school is "Better" is definitely a waste of money and other recourses. Most colleges/universities don't care what high school you went to. They care about your GPA/CR/SAT/ACT/EC/etc... </p>
<p>If you think that the current school district is unsafe, full of drugs, doesn't offer the IB program (If that's what you want); etc.... then that is something to consider. But many kids have been learning quite well in public schools just like plenty of kids have been bombing in private schools. If a student succeeds or fails in school; private or public; then more times than not, the reason is because the kid Can/Can't learn AND the parents do/don't take an active role in their child's education. The parent's role isn't shipping them to a private school and having the school raise the kids. Most times a kid does bad in school, it's the PARENT'S FAULT.</p>
<p>Now, if you're the type of parent who thinks you're suppose to pay your child's way all through college/university, and you believe that it's your responsibility as the parent to do such; then go for it. I don't believe in that. I paid for all of my college degrees. I was as poor and poor can be growing up. I couldn't expect my parents to do anything like that for me. Now, if you can afford it, that's great. You can most definitely help. Me personally, took the position with my kids that I would take care of paying 100% to the State "U" schools. They could apply to other schools if they wanted; and if they got accepted and wanted it, they would take care of the difference. I personally think that is the FAIREST METHOD of all. That's assuming the parents can afford school for their kids. Some parents can't even afford state "U". But if you can afford to pay for college, you shouldn't pay more than the cheapest most respectable school. 2 reasons: 1) You will probably live for a much longer time. You should want or expect your kids to "TAKE CARE OF YOU" when you get older. You should be investing that other money into your future and retirement. 2) ALL PEOPLE respect and appreciate things more when they pay for it themselves. By having the kid paying the difference for the HYP type schools, they will be much more responsible with their studies and their future. They will appreciate having to pay for it.</p>
<p>Now, no one has to agree with a thing I've said or suggested. That's your prerogative. Just like I don't have to agree or respect someone who thinks they should jeopardize their financial well being and future for the sake of sending their kid to a particular school. Even though it's likely not to provide any real advantages that are tangible and reimbursable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"If you're planning on going to graduate school, then where you went for your undergraduate means very little". Future employers will be looking at the "Highest" level of education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Even if that were true, ACCESS to the "highest level of education" is facilitated by where you went to college. It is without controversy that access to HYPSM for a PhD is facilitated if you went there as an undergrad. Just think about it: it you can walk down the hall to meet the key professors in the department you are interested in, take a class with him or did some research with him and get to know him, he will gladly write a recommendation for you. For most graduate schools, admission is controlled by each department. When it is time to interview for admission you have a near insurmountable advantage. It also holds true that if you want to transfer from one elite college for undergrad to another elite college for grad school it is a lot easier than if you come from some less selective college. This cross-pollination is very common, and you find the same people often rotating around between college and grad school or professional school. The professors and administrators known each other and regularly accept students from each other's colleges. Of course, you still have a shot at a top grad program if you went to Berkeley, Michigan or UCLA. You just have to stand out more, and the competition is much more intense. Selectivity at many graduate programs of elite research universities is even greater than at the colleges themselves so don't ever assume you can always board the ship later.</p>
<p>Just a couple of points; for many people (especially with the new improved financial aid packages) the very top schools are as affordable as state schools.<br>
Also (and Lord knows, we've had this very same discussion a million times over the last few years), it's not always ABOUT the money, and it's not all ABOUT the OUTCOMES. Some of us want our kids to have an excellent education with terrific resources in terms of professorial attention and opportunities and interesting intelligent peers and the whole shebang. We want our kids to have that 4-year experience. Some of us are not so interested in the outcome and couldn't care less if the degree from "top private U" ends up with Johnny making more money than his friend who attended "state U". Capiche?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just think about it: it you can walk down the hall to meet the key professors in the department you are interested in, take a class with him or did some research with him and get to know him, he will gladly write a recommendation for you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely true, though it should really be him or her. The key point is that this is a student who takes the initiative and effort to get to know professors in the department they're interested in, and to get involved in research efforts. I cannot speak for all fields, but in mine, the student getting involved in research is what is absolutely key. </p>
<p>The largest professional organization in my field issues annual, prestigeous awards for undergrad research. It was really interesting to look at the award winners, and see where they went to school. There was a whole range of institutions--some elite, some well-known, some that made you ask "where's that?" The common factors: students who were willing to search out opportunities, and professors who were willing to work with undergrads. Regardless, every single one of the awardees was presenting their work at large national conferences, and speaking to top researchers in the field about their work. They'll have no problem gaining admission to a top school in this particular field.</p>
<p>Needless to say, I don't work on Wall Street :) </p>
<p>As they say, your mileage may vary.</p>
<p>What you say definitely has some validity to it. However, there are plenty of people that went to University of "X" who go on to Purdue, Stanford, Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, etc.... for graduate school. A lot will depend on your grades and location. If you received your undergraduate with a 3.0gpa, then you will have a more difficult time getting into HYPS/etc... for your graduate school. Then again, there's a lot of other variables such as the discipline that you are studying. It's a lot more difficult to get into a graduate program for Business or Law than it is for bio/engineering/hard science/etc... A lot less students going after those graduate degrees.</p>
<p>Plus, because of the smaller amount of students and such, many times it's easier to get into a prestigious school for graduate degrees than it was for you undergraduate. Again, grades and such from your undergraduate do matter.</p>
<p>All this aside; it doesn't justify the premise of the original post which was to go into debt to send your kid to such a school. I would never even think of paying for my kid to go to a school that was going to cost me $50-60,000 a year. My son got accepted to 2 schools that were close to the $50,000 a year. He already knew that I would pay the $15,000 a year that it would cost for State "U". He applied for private scholarships, grants, etc... He came up with about another $25,000. That left him about $10,000 a year in student loans that "HE" would have to assume. That is acceptable. As far as Grad school goes, that is definitely something I DON'T think the parent should be paying for at all. A donation of some spending money maybe, but that's the extent of that. A lot of course depends on what a parent considers expensive. I personally care more about teaching the kid responsibility and discipline. I make in the 6 figures. With my wife's income, we could easily afford HPYS/etc... But that doesn't mean I would. That's crazy. I don't want my kids having to take care of me in my old age because of finances. By helping them out with some/most of their undergraduate (Depending on where they go); I've helped them with the tools for a comfortable living. If they want to have an extraordinary living and future; and need a master's or PHD; then that is their dream. Not mine.</p>
<p>BOTTOM LINE: If I can get 3 degrees; be financially well off; and have a secured future; all on my own, then they most certainly can do the same or better if I help them through their undergraduate degree. Whether it's to State "U" or assisting with a high cost prestigious school.I think that unless a parent is wealthy, going into debt for their kid's college not only shows a terrible ability to manage money, but it ultimately hurts the kid in teaching them discipline and respect for money and their own efforts.</p>