I don’t think anyone who can afford to send their kid to an elite school (given that they are accepted) is delusional. The only change in calculus, to me, is if a child or parent will be unduly burdened by loans or other financial hardship (second mortgage, dipping into the 401k etc) because of that decision. Personally, I attended an expensive, private , selective LAC (as did my sister) back in the day because not only did it provide the education I wanted, it was significantly cheaper, after aid, than our state school would have been. I am very lucky that we are in the position to offer that choice to our kids, but I do realize it’s a luxury that not everyone can afford. For people who can’t swing the $$ for elite schooling, it is good to know that their bright, capable kids will still get a great education and be successful. To me that is key finding from the Dale study – not that elite education is not "worth it’, but that there are many paths to success. That’s an important message when so few of our students are being educated at tippy top schools.
“He applied to a range of colleges including Stanford, MIT, CMU, Cal, UT Austin, GT, UIUC and a few others. His list includes what CC’ers refer to as “elites” and flagships, but that was not how he binned them up – he saw them as having the strongest value propositions to meet his goals.”
The advice on not to follow elite or bust and saving for 529 are good, but the list above is exactly the top-10 ranked CS programs according to US News, outside of not having Michigan or a Cornell/Penn. Like almost 1-10. Saying that elite or prestige had nothing to do with colleges and then applying to the eight most prestigious CS programs in the US is a little interesting.
“I could go on, but the point is there are a lot of additional factors besides VCs being impressed by the brand name of the college, and many kids who don’t attend elite privates are forming startups and getting funding, including kids from Berkeley among others.”
A Stanford grad defending Berkeley, what is the world coming to! 
Not to belabor the point,but his criteria were his criteria. Also, he was not interested in the schools with the most prestigious CS departments. His list was mico-focused on AI/ML. I listed them in the post. If you use his criteria which schools did he leave off?
I agree that VCs have no school brand loyalty. They are laser focused on making money. They search for talent.
When money is not a key driver in decision making, an individuals criteria are king 
I agree that they focus on making money and the credibility of your idea or product is the most critical. However, they also want to examine the “credibility” of the people behind the idea or product. Part of that examination is on your background, including where you attended college. Since they’re almost always graduates of some elite colleges, they’re often biased against people on the other side of the table who don’t have a similar pedigree and a record of successes yet.
No. I don’t. Struggle to see why you care. Particularly not what people say on an online message board. If I am comfortable with a given decision, I don’t care what other people have to say about it. Any amount of money you spend on anything or any given decision you make will have some people viewing it as a waste of time/money, wrong, etc. Why should that bother you? I am really comfortable with my decision and I know I didn’t waste my money; but it really bothers me when other people say I did. Why?
Why are you offended because others make different choices? That’s exactly what it sounds like. I’ve gone over this thread multiple times and have not seen anyone say the experience is the same or folks who choose the elite option are delusional. You are twisting other posters’ words to justify your little rants.
Let me sum things up again. Those who think elite schools have a monopoly on excellent educational experiences or excellent outcomes are delusional. That schools outside a small handful of schools (there isn’t even a census on which schools are “elite”) provide an excellent educational experience and excellent outcomes for their students is really not debatable. If a family wants to spend on an elite school and can comfortably afford it, great for them. If a family can afford an elite school and chooses a non-elite school, great for them. Where I take issue is with those who insist on telling others that elite schools are the end all be all which drives some of the madness we see surrounding elite college admissions and college debt. And it’s also not wrong that from a strictly financial perspective, the ROI is not there for many students (notice I did not say all) who attend elite schools at full pay. Why are folks offended by that? No one is saying don’t pay for other reasons. But if you’re talking purely financial, math is math. Now if families would think about that, less families would go into crazy debt to try to pay for these schools in search of some promised super ROI.
I would argue that it’s factually incorrect to tell someone they “wasted” their money when they clearly got utility out of spending it the way they chose to. That it isn’t how I’d spend my money is irrelevant. So in that sense, it is annoying to hear an insistent claim that the money that was in fact spent rationally from an economic perspective was “wasted” and should engender regret.
Now it is good to be able to brush it off, and I advocate this approach. I can also appreciate the fatigue that comes from an apparent refusal by some to believe that people haven’t made a mistake and actually know what they want, whether it’s spending money on an Ivy League education or turning down a six-figure starting salary to hike in the woods and play the flute. Trust people when they say what they want.
In fact, at least one person did, or at least concurred with the viewpoint.
Let me clarify. Tens of thousands of people are delusional that think that spending lots of money on a college education will open doors. That applies to prestigious schools, and not as prestigious schools.
Many here have mentioned that one can go to a prestigious school, and not spend a lot of money, such as Harvard, or Princeton, if you qualify for a lot of aid. Great and I certainly don’t begrudge people of the opportunity. In fact, it’s awesome. Or you could attend in state flagship public universities like Michigan, UCLA, Berkeley, UNC or UVA. Also great.
Then there are those that will spend almost $300K to attend one of these public or private universities, either as an out of state student, or a private small LAC like Williams or an Ivy. And they are an upper middle class family making $200K/year. They struggle to send one or even two kids to these schools, assuming that when their kids graduate, that $300K the invest (or $600K) will open all sorts of paths for them. In some cases, yes, their kids do well. In other cases, the parents could have sent them in state to a school like Indiana or Illinois and the kids would have the exact same opportunities.
I have a friend who is from Chicago. This is exactly the situation they found themselves in. They make $200K/year, and they sent 3 kids to Michigan. Almost $900K in undergrad college costs.
Wouldn’t they have gotten just as good of an education at UIUC and saved $450K? To me, it’s more than just choosing a prestigious school…it borders delusional, and it probably is a bad economic choice.
We had exactly this choice with my daughter. Go to Michigan, and spend $300K, or got to ASU Honors, and spend almost 25% of this. I didn’t even have to convince my kid. She made the right choice (at least for her). Even if I made $500K/year instead of $200K, I think it’s the correct choice (and I went to Michigan). It also teaches my kids more about the important value of money. For me, it’s the same for most schools. (Maybe Stanford or Harvard would change my mind, especially for grad school.)
Different strokes for different folks I guess.
But statements about someone wasting their money or time are not limited to college choices (or six figure salaries). Would it be better if they said “in my opinion” its a waste of time/money? To me they are saying the thing.
How do you define “telling others that Elite schools are the end all be all”?
Elites typically provide great resources, alumni network, name recognition, targeted job recruitment in competitive fields and consistency in the academic ambitions and proven past abilities across the vast majority of the student body.
It is also factual that many great alternatives to elites exist for highly motivated students and that eventual outcomes are driven as much by the student as the institution.
I hope that suggesting both “truths” can coexist doesn’t offend you and that you might even agree.
In most of your scenarios, I suspect the issue is status, not money. That still doesn’t make it delusional. It could be a bad economic choice if the family overextends itself and pays severe consequences, or it could just be the big thing they’ve been working towards.
I will say this. As much as I enjoyed going to a state university, it still left me with a chip on my shoulder towards people with elite degrees who don’t strike me as noticeably more accomplished (note: I have met people with elite degrees who impress me a great deal, but I think I could have managed fine among the lower middle tier at a prestigious university). And that’s just me as a punk kid. For many parents, that Ivy League degree is buying or maintaining some form of social legitimacy. If I wanted to get judgmental, I could question the wisdom, but I can’t question the utility. It’s what you want and you pay the market rate. Simple economics.
I decided a long time ago that I’d pay for my kids to go to an affordable public university. If they wanted more, they’d have to do the convincing (and my oldest doesn’t seem to care). If one of them actually got into a really top school, I’d probably jump all over it and see what I could do to afford it. Again, not because of delusions about ROI, but just that it’s a cool thing that isn’t likely to happen again.
On the subject of ROI, I sort of wonder if lump sums approaching $1 million would be better invested in real estate. Maybe training your kids as property managers would at least leave them secure if not wealthy.
“ Tens of thousands of people are delusional that think that spending lots of money on a college education will open doors”
Your wording seems a bit ambiguous. Do you think elite institutions do open doors but it isn’t worth the cost such that at the same price point you would choose the elite or are you suggesting simply elites don’t open doors?
If I recall your prior posts correctly your daughter was applying to Stanford, Duke and Northwestern. You described them as “what the heck” schools and pretty clearly acknowledged they offered some advantages, suggesting costs being the same they would be preferable. In fairness you also said they would have to be affordable but certainly sounded aspirational if the cost worked.
What experience or realization contributed to your current stance which seems to have evolved over time?
OK I’ll admit it. I’m delusional. You got me pegged! 🥸
I think you have me confused with someone else. DD applied to no private schools. We visited Northwestern and U of Chicago, but they were too small for her taste. She is accomplished, high GPA, 98th percentile on the ACT, varsity lacrosse athlete, tons of ECs, and Hispanic on my wife’s side. I’m guessing she could have stood a chance at some of the less selective Ivies (Cornell, Dartmouth) and some of the next tier schools like Vandy based on her credentials and her URM hook. But she had no interest because that wasn’t her crowd and I respected that. Plus I wasn’t going to shell out $300K for undergrad.
I’m surrounding by friends that went to selective schools. My boys prep school class of 60 had guys going to Brown, Harvard, Yale, Duke, Penn and other top schools. My current friends went to Harvard, Wharton, Northwestern, Cornell, and other places. And I have others that went to UW Oshkosh, colleges in Spain, UF, Mexico, Michigan State, ASU and Mizzou. The key differentiator in economic success is what industry they entered, and even then, that doesn’t tell a lot. My friend that went to school in Mexico and is a software developer has done better than the one that is in business and got his MBA at Wharton.
When my DD was applying to schools, I asked my friends from Michigan and also friends that went to Harvard, Wharton, and Northwestern if your selection and graduation from a certain school mattered to your future success. ALL of them said it had no impact.
I will tell you a woman I know that went to Princeton and Harvard Law. She joined a top law firm in town and she got laughed out of the firm. She couldn’t relate to any of the associates or partners, and was the butt of their jokes. Yet my friend who went to Mizzou Law did well there. Go figure.
Finally, what if you took the extra $150K from picking an Ivy at full price or high ranking out of state school over a typical in state university and instead invested it into the stock market at a return of investment of 6% from age 18-65? You child would have $2.3 million in the bank. And maybe equal or slightly less income potential by attending the less expensive school. Everyone has their priorities, but I’d rather leave my kids with a bunch of money and a college degree than a more prestigious degree and no extra money.
Again, I don’t begrudge anyone that goes to a prestigious school. All the power to them, especially if they got a great deal to attend. That’s the ultimate prize. I just am not convinced it opens the doors that people think it does.
“Also applying to Stamford and Duke because what the heck” and “ As for the “What the heck schools”, on the chance that they would want a Hispanic female with good grades and scores as well as ECs, maybe they would want to offer an enticement to make it affordable?”
Sorry I misconstrued these prior posts.
I think your major and experience will open doors more than the reputation of the school. If you could convince me that spending $300K vs $80-$150K was worth it in future earnings, then sign me up. But I haven’t seen it based on my own experience, and many studies have shown the same in terms of what employers look for in hires. See my earlier post.
Who is likely to be earning a higher salary? An engineering graduate from Cal Maritime or a History Major from Dartmouth? A chemical engineer or CS major from Minnesota, or a Sociology major from Duke?
In both cases, I’m betting the Cal Maritime graduate and chem engineer or CS major likely makes more when they graduate. Maybe the Duke CS Major will make more at the start than the one from Minnesota, but maybe not.
But all things being equal costs, major etc you still don’t think a household prestigious named school offers any advantages?
The history major at Harvard or CS major at Stanford vs same kid and major at ASU at same cost you wouldn’t choose the “big” name? So it’s not about the difference in cost it’s that there is no difference in the doors the elite school opens if I am understanding you correctly?
No problem at all. Yes, maybe that’s the case, but I make enough money that the chances weren’t great to get a nice scholarship to make it worthwhile anyway.
Instead, my DD took the much less expensive route with a full tuition ride. And not only did she have a great freshman year, but she has a great summer internship and will have $50K+ that we saved waiting for her upon graduation. She’s happy, is getting a very good education, it isn’t breaking the bank, and she’ll like have a number of job offers upon graduation mostly because of her major (Supply Chain).
Or, if she got into Cornell or similar, she’d probably be less happy, might have a similar or lesser job, and wouldn’t have $50K waiting for her. But she would have that nice degree hanging on the wall that no one would care about after her first job.
All things being equal, yes, I would probably choose the kid who went to Stanford or Harvard, but not if they would be a disruption to my team. (See my reference to the law firm above.) And if the ASU kid was in the honors college, had a bunch of real world experience, and got along with my team better than the Harvard or Stanford kid, I would go with the ASU kid in a heartbeat. But that’s me as a hiring manager. I want someone I can work with that runs through brick walls, not someone who causes problems.
Sure, reputation might impress some people, but I don’t know if it is worth a lot of money. With money being equal, I would go with the more prestigious school, but only if I felt comfortable there. But the whole connections thing is overblown IMHO. My buddy from Harvard thinks the same, and hates the term, which to him smacks of manipulation.
BTW, the best two alum networks I have seen are Notre Dame and USC, not an Ivy.
I appreciate your honesty and agree that most people would choose the prestige kid. Glad not to be delusional.
Dozens of investment banks, management consulting firms, VC, PE firms etc make the exact same decision not based on individual candidates but by recruiting on elite campuses (while only taking mail ins from lesser regarded schools) and hiring annually. Candidates for these jobs directly benefit from the insight and support the extensive alumni networks that have built up over the years provide. Given the volume of elite students employed at these prestige companies, I think it highly unlikely a particular candidate would be “a disruption” risk by virtue of their academic background as you imply.
I am glad we are agreeing that all things being equal the prestige kid gets the nod but not sure your anecdotal Princeton lawyer is compelling evidence that all elite school alumni will be “disruptive”.
You state, “I want someone I can work with that runs through brick walls, not someone who causes problems.”
Seems like a pejorative generalization of elite school kids from someone who has so many friends from elite schools but you are of course entitled to your own biases.