Studies of college graduates?

Parents Forum
1

<p>I come to CC irregularly, but what usually stands out to me is how VERY IMPORTANT it seems to both the kids posting and the parents that they are both competitive with other students and get into a TOP SCHOOL.</p>

<p>I look at all the posts from kids who want to get into Ivy schools or top LAC and I often wonder how so many can afford to go unless there is some special dispensation. Otherwise, kids are going to be graduating with debt to the eyeballs.</p>

<p>Certainly, every parent who pays for college or kid who gets student loans would hope that there was going to be a tangible return on investment, not merely the emotional satisfaction (or brag) of claiming a particular school. Have there been any Actual Studies that track graduates (random sampling, not cherry picked) from top schools to see what the outcome was in jobs, social standing, monetary health, etc.? It would be interesting to see if there was any change compared to where the student started in family assets.</p>

<p>With this desire to only attend the Select, it seems like a sort of "gated community" mentality is forming in the process with people trying to obtain maximum advantages and raise the bar at those places each time for the population as a whole, even if not consciously.</p>

<p>High caliber kids can improve the system as a whole if they (and parents) would not be so set on the so called "top" only, especially if studies showed the advantages of attending and "rubbing shoulders" mainly accrued to the few. People do graduate at the bottom of their class. </p>

<p>We are lucky enough that we <em>could</em> afford the price of many so called select schools, but we haven't inculcated a sense of super competition in our kid either, so he doesn't come across as stellar as many of the postees in EC's or have really high test scores. Knowing him, his teachers are suggesting the top ranked schools automatically, but I'm not convinced it is more than marketing and "location, location" thinking. After all, fine professors can also choose schools to satisfy their own desire for atmosphere, size and various intangibles and they won't necessarily be the top 25, right? </p>

<p>That said, if there really were proven advantages, then I can see how encouraging a kid to strive for entry to the chosen few could be beneficial.</p>

<p>Of course, with the economy looking worse, war and Peak Oil, all these concerns are probably going to fall by the wayside...</p>

2

<p>There was a thread on CC about a month or so ago discussing this issue. My take on the gist of those discussions is that there is a sense that HYP graduates get some preferential treatment at some major east coast law firms, banks etc. Looking at the staff backgrounds at some of these firms appears to support this contention but, as you can imagine, hard data proving the point is lacking. Studies which have looked at composites of graduates from HYP versus other colleges have generally supported the notion that HYP grads as a whole do better financially than non HYP grads post college and professional training. However, when HYP grads are compared to non-HYP grads who had pre-college credentials equal to those selected for HYP, there are no differences between the two groups in post college success. Summing it all up I think it is safe to say that there are some old boy places which might favor the HYP diploma in the professional and corporate world, but there does not appear to be an overall advantage to the HYP experience in terms of post graduate success when students of equal abilities are measured against one another.</p>

3

<p>I think there is definitely a debate about this topic. You can read the following article to learn more:</p>

<p><a href="http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Savingforcollege/P36742.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Savingforcollege/P36742.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think an important point (and one I made on another post) is that students should apply to schools they want to go to, then worry about finances later. The published tuition is not necessarily what you will have to pay. Many of the top schools offer strong financial aid packages. That being said, most students would benefit by applying to an in-state public university as a "safety" option, both from an admission rate and financial perspective.</p>

<p>My other post can be found in this thread:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=75304%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=75304&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

4

<p>There is one study (but I can't find the link), that looked at students who turned down "top" schools to go elsewhere. In other words, the same students with same profile, just different school. In aggregate, no difference in outcomes. The "average" student at one of the prestige schools will do better than the "average" student at a lesser, but that has more to do with what they bring to the table, not what the school necessarily did for them.</p>

<p>In med school admissions, by all accounts the top student at the second tier school does better than the "average" student at the top tier one. The reason for that is rather obvious - more research opportunities, better mentoring, more "coddling".</p>

<p>The future, however, is always dim. I've always thought the best approach is to find the place where a student will best feel both challenged and supported for four years, and then let the future take care of itself.</p>

5

<p>I would have to really disagree with the idea of applying to any school you want and worrying about the money later. I think you should do just the opposit. One only has to read these boards to see the number of kids/families who face the financial realities too late and end up disillusioned.</p>

<p>While the low income get financial aid, many who think they will don't or get much less than they thought. Home equity in this booming housing time is especially responsible for many middle class families getting no aid.</p>

<p>As to the question of the op, I think most studies have shown there are certain benefits of a top college, especially if certain careers are desired. Lot's of threads on this in the acgieves if you want to read opinions.</p>

6

<p>Mini: I find your posts very informative. thanks</p>

7

<p>There's strong research evidence that the best predictor of students' goals and aspirations is the college peer group. That may be the most profound impact of attending a highjly-selective college - the motivation and pull from associating with other high-achievers.</p>

8

<p>The one study that was done on comparative outcomes of the same students suggests otherwise, or, alternatively, that those goals and aspirations could as effectively be found among top students at no-so-selective colleges. (and a possible explanation of that might be that they are more motivated.)</p>

9

<p>There have been many studies, not just the one you reference. Byerly recently posted 2 very dredible articles on why top schools are increasing in advantage. A search for the post might interest anyone really interested in the subject.</p>

10

<p><a href="http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20040902easterbrook.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20040902easterbrook.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

11

<p>University of Wisconsin did a study a couple of years ago that studied the effects of attendance at an elite college. If you google "UW study on elite education" and go to the second page there is a PDF that shows the study. (I don't know how to attach a PDF file here or if it's even possible) The actual title that shows up on google is "Regression and matching estimates of the effects of elite colleges". It's worth reading and if I remember correctly there is a difference in the earning power at the beginning of an elite college graduates career with the effects waning over time when actual performance and job history becomes more important. That's a big IF because I read it a year ago and my memory is fuzzy.</p>

12

<p>The key point in the Hoxby study (cited as supporting the notion that there is a difference) is Hoxby's statement that 'there is not much difference in results between Princeton and Rutgers'(!). The differences were between Princeton and Podunk. (And what Hoxby didn't do, as I remember, was account for difference in family income/education upon admission, which likely accounts for the differences in earning power in the first few years.) But (another caveat), the family economic differences between those attending "elites" and other schools are increasing. My alma mater has a smaller percentage of students receiving need-based aid than 30 years ago, even as list prices, as a percentage of median family income, have soared. I expect the same is true at H., etc. If this is the case, it would likely account for virtually all the difference in earning power in the early years of one's career.</p>

13

<p>You know you did ask the, ultimate, question. </p>

<p>I see it as another way to postpone a decision.
1. In today's world of efficiency, it is "efficient" to let the kids attend some type of higher education. The era of apprentistship is long over.</p>

<p>2.Our culture does not force children to assume responsibilities until he has completed reached attained age and not acquired skills and worldliness.</p>

<p>3.Parents as a whole tend to believe that kids are kids until we recognize that they can do certain tasks independent of our wisdom.</p>

<p>4.The technical nature of our society encourages schooling.</p>

<ol>
<li>Because of 1,2,3,4, kids have no impetus to grow up.</li>
</ol>

<p>Don't worry, Be happy, Its only money.
Education is very much an intangible. That's why there are so many studies. IF the answer was simple and tangible, we wouldn't have CC.</p>

<p>good luck</p>