<p>I think this discussion shows us once again that “value” is not just a number; there is “intrinsic” and “subjective” value in everything. To give an example from today’s news, it was more “valuable” for the actor and Oscar host James Franco to fly on the red eye from LAX to JFK so that he could attend his poetry class in the Yale Ph.D. program in English instead of attend the post-show parties. In fact, he hopes to be able to ditch Hollywood for a tenured professor position at a place like Yale someday. He will never earn as much as a star actor if he follows through on that plan, but that is what he “values”. Different strokes for different folks!</p>
<p>I definitely agree that there’s a different standard of “value” for everyone…which is why these rankings by Princeton Review and USN&WR are so preposterous. And it’s also why it’s equally preposterous for individuals to allow themselves to be guided by such subjective measures simply because they’re in a magazine.</p>
<p>A.E. is correct that these are all designed to sell magazines, web site access and other ancillary products. But this is nothing new and it’s hardly limited to higher education. These are entertainment pieces – the same as PR campaigns designed to promote movies and the proliferation of Gene Shalit’s rave review as a way to create interest in a high-budget film, which may, in turn, influence voting members of the MPAA, who then award an Oscar which, frankly, is a great vehicle for stirring up and regenerating interest – and can be leveraged by the studio to sell more tickets and DVDs and broadcast rights, etc.</p>
<p>Arguing about the accuracy of this Princeton Review ranking is like taking issue with Justin Bieber being shut out at the Grammies, whether The King’s Speech was truly the best film considering all the low-budget Indie films out there that are amazing yet don’t have the bully pulpit and strong-arm PR tactics and inroads to thousands of screens nationwide. It’s like being PO’ed that the pre-season football rankings always give Notre Dame a high ranking. And, just as Notre Dame isn’t that good and Justin Bieber isn’t that spectacular and The King’s Speech isn’t the “Best Film” in any objective way, Swarthmore isn’t, by some universally-accepted, objective measure, a “good value.”</p>
<p>It’s all about creating interest and selling magazines and generating public interest and creating water cooler debates. There’s no sinister conspiracy. It’s all just clever marketing by third parties to sell their parasite products. It happens all around us all the time. In some cases it’s directed at couch potato armchair quarterbacks. In some cases it’s directed at starstruck teenage girls. In other cases, it’s directed at movie lovers. And, in this case, it’s directed at students, parents and all the geeky people who “follow” what’s going on in academia.</p>
<p>Whether we agree or disagree with what college ranking publications have to say, the water cooler discussion debates they fuel are bearable only as long as we don’t take their views – or our own – any more seriously than the rankings in Variety, Teen Scene, or Street & Smith’s College Football Spectacular.</p>
<p>There’s one and only one exception to this and that’s that I will brook no debate taking issue with any fan mag or celebrity stalker publication that declares Salma Hayek to be the sexiest woman alive.</p>
<p>In our case, financial aid was not as generous at Swarthmore as it was at other peer schools. Therefore, value can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. It’s why you must cast your net wide and can’t count on any review books to determine the best value schools.</p>
<p>AE^^ To state that Swat’s “ROI” is lower (even by 1-2%) than other elite schools is misleading. More than any other peer institution, a much larger percentage of Swarthmore grads go into academics, public service, etc. (whereas a substantial majority of newly- minted Harvard grads go directly into finance). This is a matter of choice (dare I say altruism and intellectual seriousness?). If you examined the cross-section of Swatties who elect to pursue the more higly compensated professions, banking, venture capital, etc. this perceived difference will vanish.</p>
<p>unshaken, what was your EFC out of curiousity? You can pm if u want. I was curious of realife examples from the aggregate data that I see on college board. It says that SC pays 100pct of need. Of course, SC defines what is need.</p>
<p>[College</a> Search - Swarthmore College - Swat - Cost & Financial Aid](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t suppose you have any data to back this up? Also, consider the case of a Harvard grad and a Swarthmore grad competing for the same job. Who do you think is getting the job? I think the Harvard grad has numerous advantages, most notably better name-brand recognition and a more extensive and better placed graduate network. So, all other things being equal (and they aren’t, seeing as how Harvard students have better SATs than Swarthmore students on average to begin with), my money is on the Harvard student.</p>
<p>Also, higher graduate school matriculation rates for Swarthmore graduates could be related to not having as much success at immediately finding a job right out of college. I know plenty of people who went back to graduate school after spending some time in the workforce after graduation. How many of them would have gone to graduate school if their jobs were paying significantly more? Probably not as many. Perhaps one of the contributing factors to Harvard students not going to graduate school at the same rate is that they do so well for themselves immediately after graduating from college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you do, A.E.? Seems to me that for the most part, you’re just raising theoretical scenarios, and talking about “plenty of people” you know, which could be any number at all. “Consider the case,” “I think,” Probably," “Perhaps”? None of those constitute data either. </p>
<p>You were unhappy at Swarthmore; anybody who’s read these boards for any length of time knows that. Sometimes you post valid points, and a good reminder that the school isn’t great for everybody, and for some it isn’t even good. This isn’t one of those times.</p>
<p>The only phrase in your last post that people should pay attention to is this:
- because they never are, for one thing. When you’re applying for a job, you’re presenting yourself; your alma mater is just one part of that picture. And for another, by the time people are applying for jobs, nobody cares what their SAT scores were. (And “better . . . on average” doesn’t pertain to any individual, anyway.)</p>
<p>AE- absolutely: Swarthmore has consistently ranked in the top 3 institutions in the country for producing PhD’s per capita (safe to assume most of these folks aren’t going into mergers and acquisitions). When I last checked, Swat also produced the highest per capita number of Nobel laureates (above HYP, etc.), which suggests an academic bent. That said, I agree with Harriet: you are who you are- you either cut it and thrive at your alma mater or you don’t and you can’t ultimately blame your failures (or successes) on where you attended college.</p>
<p>
How do you define “middle-class”? My family is middle class–what some would call “middle middle class,” not “upper middle class”–and above the median U.S. income. We have only been middle-class for 10 years, and started from essentially 0 before that point (immigrants). I receive substantial FA from Swarthmore, which calculated a family contribution less than my ~15k FAFSA EFC.</p>
<p>FA “generosity” will vary for every family, especially those with finances more complicated than paycheck income and typical assets. In that respect, Swarthmore is probably not any more or less generous than Williams or Amherst; but for a PARTICULAR family, the difference may or may not be significant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve provided citations for every piece of actual data I’ve used ITT. I have not made claims beyond simple ROI considerations, in which Swarthmore comes up short. Other people have tried to supply reasons for why Swarthmore comes up short compared to other elite schools, but they have not actually provided any data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I give you a 2 out of 5 for ad hominem. You should leave that to the experts and focus instead on what I say rather than who I am. My points ITT absolutely are valid. Instead of offering anything resembling an argument, all you have done is (1) misrepresent me and (2) attack me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m talking about trends, not individuals. This should be obvious given the topic of this thread. You may as well tell us that the ROI of any one individual can be different than the average of all students at his or her alma mater.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that you can’t blame your successes or failures on where you attended college. I do not attribute any of my own success to Swarthmore. I could have gone just about anywhere and ended up where I am now; Harvard researcher [Dan</a> Gilbert](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Gilbert_(psychologist)]Dan”>Daniel Gilbert (psychologist) - Wikipedia) has shown that our decisions in life don’t matter as much as we think they do, and where to go for college is undoubtedly a perfect example of this. The only difference is who my friends are, but I’m sure I would have made good friends at Harvard or Georgia Tech or wherever else as well. Also, just FYI, I’m pretty sure Swarthmore ranks second in number of Nobel Prize winners per graduate, not that the difference matters, and not that it is a large contributing factor to the value a school provides its students.</p>
<p>And my comments about the opportunity cost of going to graduate school for Harvard graduates who have lucrative jobs still stands.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure Williams and Amherst are in the same boat as Swarthmore when it comes to squeezing out the middle class. I don’t really know what the definition of middle class is, but someone from a family whose household income is $90,000 but who can’t afford to go to Swarthmore because of financial aid limitations would have to be a member of the middle class.</p>
<p>Wow, Yall Mad. Swarthmore Says They Give 100% To Whatever You Can’t Give && While I Do Believe This Does Not Always Happen (The 100%) They Gave Me 100% What They Felt I Couldn’t Contribute. Then Again I’m Poor & Black. . .NEVERMIND =0</p>
<p>Whatever your definition of middle-class, here is the parents’ income profile for students receiving scholarship support from Swarthmore this year. Looks like plenty of middle income families. Average financial aid award is $36,540. From college’s institutional research website at <a href=“http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/FAStats.pdf[/url]”>http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/FAStats.pdf</a></p>
<p>Family income of aided students in 2010-11:
$ 40,000 and below 17%
$ 40,001 - $ 60,000 10%
$ 60,001 - $ 80,000 11%
$ 80,001 - $100,000 12%
$100,001 - $120,000 10%
$120,001 - $150,000 17%
$150,001 and above 23%</p>
<p>“Plenty” may depend on who you ask.</p>
<p>
Someone whose household income is $90k/year but can’t afford Swarthmore is most likely 1) in a divorced-parent situation where one parent is wealthy but unwilling to contribute, a despairing donut hole that is present for essentially all of the elite colleges, 2) has unusual assets, or 3) is unwilling to make lifestyle sacrifices as a family in order to afford their EFC. A “typical” 90k family would definitely qualify for need-based aid at Swarthmore, probably around 1/2 COA. That seems pretty generous to me.</p>
<p>And the data cited^^ shows that 50% of aided students (approximately 25% of the total student body) come from a family that earns $100k or less per year, which most people would classify as middle class. (The controversy over definitions is about the 100-120k or even 140k+ range, whether those folks are middle or upper middle or upper class.)</p>
<p>Individual families WILL be dissatisfied with financial aid, at ANY school. But many or most of their reasons for being dissatisfied are not things that Swarthmore can fairly respond to. The FA office applies an equal standard to all applicants and determines a “reasonable” family contribution, then meets 100% of need beyond that contribution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s also the idea that a family with a household income of $90,000 a year in New York City will not have the kind of disposable income as a family with the same household income in South Dakota.</p>
<p>^That is supposedly adjusted for (by Swarthmore, separate from the CSS PROFILE). Whether it works or not is another matter, but I haven’t seen actual data that it doesn’t.</p>