<p>
</p>
<p>So the anonymous posters on an Internet message board disagree with me, compared to the two professors of education who have devoted a good portion of their lives to analyzing 5,000+ scholarly assessments of the impacts of colleges on students?</p>
<p>Somehow I’ll manage to live with that.</p>
<p>
But that assumes investment is measured in “making it back via eventual salary.” To me, that has nothing to do with anything. I think the experience at a more selective college is inherently worthwhile even if it doesn’t translate into one penny more in salary.</p>
<p>It’s worth spending money to go to Europe (as an example) even though it doesn’t translate into any increase in income. There’s an inherent life experience that I value and I don’t require “payout.” I’m in Europe right now, as it turns out, on business. I’m going to “Coppellia” at the Teatro dell’Opera tonight and paying a premium to do so. Is that a bad “investment” since I won’t make any money off it? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So why does it hold for high school, then? After all, you went to considerable effort to send your daughter to a more prestigious, more highly selective, wealthier high school than your local one. Why is it that rigor, breadth / depth of courses, and better facilities make a difference in high school but not in college?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh good! Someone has taken up my challenge to post evidence that contradicts that which I’ve posted. This is getting really exciting!</p>
<p>Now to be honest with you, I’d never heard of the “Lethbridge Undergraduate Research Journal,” so I Googled it.</p>
<p>[Lethbridge</a> Undergraduate Research Journal](<a href=“http://www.lurj.org/front.php]Lethbridge”>http://www.lurj.org/front.php)</p>
<p>Here’s what the home page says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>'Nuff said?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - if there was a like button for your post #122, I would have pressed it :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am in complete agreement with you. But I rather suspect that you and I are in the minority hereabouts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you keep trying to refocus this discussion on high schools? If there are studies of the educational impacts of different high schools on students, I haven’t seen them (not that I’ve looked, because I haven’t).</p>
<p>But if you can find a college where biology is taught by a teacher with three credit hours of college education herself in biology, and where the English department consists of one teacher two years out of college herself, then I’ll agree, you may have an analogous situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but if you’re going to Europe primarily to see first-class opera performances, then yes, air fare to Europe is a bad investment, since you can hop on Metra and see equally high-quality opera performances a couple blocks from the downtown Chicago stations - for the price of a round-trip train ticket.</p>
<p>Just like if you’re going to college primarily to get a first-class educational experience, then yes, high-priced private tuition is a bad investment, since you can go to your state school and get an equally high quality educational experience - for the price of in-state public tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am in full agreement that one should measure the value of one’s college experience according to a number of factors. I’m perplexed when people calculate values based on salary; it’s important, I guess, to some people but I hate to think it’s the only factor for anyone. That’s just me. As to the second part, I’m torn. I agree that there are inherently valuable college experiences that don’t translate into eventual salary, but many of those experiences can be had at non-elite schools. Are there more and better opportunities for those experiences at elite schools? I wouldn’t know. (Please, no research!!!) </p>
<p>But consider this cost-benefit analysis: Cost for me to attend the University of Nebraska on scholarship: approximately $6K (maybe more, I don’t know; it was a long time ago). Being able to drink beer every weekend at one of the Midwest’s finest blues establishments, watching the likes of Son Seals strutting across the bar: priceless. </p>
<p>Mind you, I am not one to argue that people who aspire to admission at elite schools are simply chasing prestige or to disparage parents who seeks the advantages of an elite education for their kids. Similarly, I wouldn’t cast asparagus (it’s a joke, kids) on someone who thinks a lower-ranked, less expensive school is just fine. Someone called annasdad dangerous; others have rightly pounced on that comment as hyberbole. I would argue that there is more danger in rhetoric suggesting that kids who cannot get into a top-tier school are doomed to a life of poverty and mediocrity! If you don’t think that rhetoric can be found on CC (and in spades), you’re not as obsessive about this site as I am. ;)</p>
<p>^ Now I’m looking for that Like button</p>
<p>annasdad…I am curious about where you attended college. Did you attend a state college?</p>
<p>It is one thing to choose not to send your children to expensive top tier schools but to say that the top tier schools offer no more than a lower tier school is ridiculous. Most of your posts are about your so called proof…it is getting old and you are beginning to sound ridiculous. There is no comparison and I have seen that with my own kids and their friends. I could also tell you that every kid who is currently unemployed in my kids circle came from lower tiered schools. Of course there are plenty of unemployed Ivy grads …but I don’t personally know of any.</p>
<p>You are on this forum since May 2011 and it seems like every post I read of yours is about the same old tired subject. What are you trying to accomplish with over 3000 posts all related to the ills of the IVY education. I am beginning to think you have sour grapes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>annasdad, the main argument I’ve seen you give supporting your position that one school is as good as another is based on the future earning of the graduates. Then when Pizzagirl points out that potential future earnings isn’t the only reason to go to college you agree with her. If you agree with that then why do you keep saying that a private school isn’t worth it because you won’t earn anymore down the road?</p>
<p>May I also point out that whenever a poster argues with you you point out that they are not citing any studies. Then you say</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How come when it suits you there is no need to cite a study to back up your position? This particular statement jumped out at me because I don’t believe you are in the minority here at all. Plenty of us don’t just see a college degree as a ticket to a higher paycheck. We see and value the whole college experience. But I suppose I’m not supposed to say that because I don’t have a study to back it up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What difference would that make, and why do you folks continue to try to make this about me and ignore the research that I’ve cited?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then what’s your hypothesis to explain the huge volume of reserach that says that they don’t offer more when it comes to the quality of the education a student can get, and not much more otherwise? And the fact that there is apparently no data that suggests otherwise? Or are you just content to ignore the plain facts in front of your face?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anecdotes …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Leaving aside the inconvenience that your assertion is blatantly and flatly false, I would ask again: why are you so intent on making this about me? If you have contrary data, post it. If you have alternative explanations for the data that exist, post them. The nearly complete absence of any such postings leads me to believe that no such data or explanations exist.</p>
<p>I agree with the generalization that any good student can acquire an excellent education at almost any college. I think the same student could probably acquire an excellent education without college.</p>
<p>It becomes a different question with an individual student. </p>
<p>annasdad: Have you ever addressed Blossom’s post regarding the difference in opportunities for an Art History Major at UConn, Yale, and Williams? Where does that particular student have the best chance at an excellent education? And will the undergraduate school matter in graduate school admissions?</p>
<p>Obviously Art History is just one example of many when you talk about individual students. For your individual student you wanted the very best HS education available. For your individual student, what will be the very best college education available? What are the important factors you will look for?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gee, in one post out of dozens on the subject I talk about future earnings, and you consider that the “main argument supporting my position?” And the only reason I cited that is because it’s the one real argument that doesn’t support my basic position, which is that where a motivated student goes to college doesn’t much matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because that’s not what I keep saying. What I keep saying is that in terms of the quality of education a motivated student can get, a private school isn’t worth paying more for. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very carefully now - go back and read my statement that you quoted. The verb is “suspect.” Do you know what that means? Do you know that it is not a synonym for “maintain,” “assert,” or even “believe?” Add to that I weaseled it further with the adverb “rather,” and perhaps you’ll conclude that I was not making a statement that needed to be backed up with data.</p>
<p>As to your belief: </p>
<p>“Plenty of us don’t just see a college degree as a ticket to a higher paycheck. We see and value the whole college experience.”</p>
<p>I would hope that you are right. But there are a whole lot of folks around CC who make it very explicit that the reason they’re sending their kid to college is so they can get a good job and make a lot of money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, good. We appear to be getting somewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Excellent” perhaps, “just as good,” not so much. Why? As tiresome as it is, I must again cite from some research:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which would indicate to me that going to college does enhance the educational experience, and by a lot, to the extent the student takes advantage of the opportunities offered there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s my point, or a large part of it. To use Andrew Roberts’ phrase, a student who is determined to “suck the juice out” of the opportunities available at a college can get a high-quality education, almost anywhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, in general, perhaps I’ll start trying to address every question in the voluminous responses to my posts when people start addressing the questions raised by the research I’ve repeatedly cited. Fat chance of that, I fear.</p>
<p>But to your specific question, I do not claim to be an expert in art history (and I don’t recall all the details of Blossom’s post). Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why it’s that much more valuable to see an original painting in person than to look at a reproduction, or a slide, or a photo of it. I confess ignorance. I do have a friend who teaches art history in one of the less-prestigious Chicago-area universities, and I know that she often takes classes to the Art Institute of Chicago, so I guess there must be a valid reason.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a future tense question. We’ve narrowed the search to a college that offers a variety of courses in her potential majors, that offer the languages she wishes to study, and where her stats give her at least an outside chance of admission. She will make the final selection, not I, with knowledge of how much of a financial contribution I can make. Given what she has told me, she plans to pick a place where she won’t need to borrow any money – and if there are several of those, the place where based on her visits she feels most at home.</p>
<p>To all those arguing about this - you can look at the top tier private colleges vs state/public ones in terms of Pizzagirl. To get to Rome she took a plane. Now she may have gone economy or she may have paid up for business/first class. Same time in the air, same destination. If you mind, you pay up, you get lovely amenities. If you don’t mind the lack of leg room, overhead space, food thats not as good, not as many attendants to watch over you, you can easily go coach. You get to the same place in the end. But then comes the arrival bit - those with business/first class tickets get a shorter line in customs, and sometimes a free limo to center of town. Those that don’t stand on a long line, and sometimes take cabs, sometimes take a bus to the center. Again they get to the same place, just in a different manner.</p>
<p>The traveler may arrive in the same country, which we’ll equate to the state of having graduated with a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university. However, once past the arrival at the airport, I’d suggest that the type of traveler who flies coach will likely also book different hotel accomodations, dine at less expensive restaurants, and experience a generally less comfortable tourist experience. Similarly, the graduate of an elite school may more easily and more quickly obtain a well-paying job in his field commensurate with his education and experience, which will in turn lead to a more economically comfortable and intellectually satisfying start to his adult life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The research supports that as a general proposition:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know much at all about art history but think you do actually have to see the “objects” if you are a serious student. Even if someone rejects connoisseurship, doesn’t the object still matter?? That is a discussion way over my head 
If you can become an Art Historian by looking at pictures, and reading the experts, you don’t really need college at all – imho</p>
<p>Of course, for the price of Yale you could visit a lot of museums. That is where we get into how the money is best spent. But if you never go to college, you probably can’t get into a PhD program in Art History. I don’t think there are 3,000 colleges that prepare someone to successfully apply to Art History PhD programs.</p>
<p>College is not the only place you can find intellectual growth. I like absweetmarie’s inclusion of bars! When I asked earlier whether it made any difference if someone read Shakespeare with an expert, you called me out as elitist. I acknowledged that there was something to be gained in a discussion of Shakespeare with anyone interested in that topic but it might be a different experience reading Shakespeare with someone who had devoted a life’s work to the Bard. Either it matters who you study with or it doesn’t. Pick a side. :)</p>
<p>[Backers</a> of Yale Italian Paintings Show Lament Loss of ?Eye? - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/arts/design/05museum.html]Backers”>Backers of Yale Italian Paintings Show Lament Loss of ‘Eye’ - The New York Times)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Recently</a> Offered Courses | Asian Art | Graduate Program | Department of Art History | The University of Chicago Division of the Humanities](<a href=“http://arthistory.uchicago.edu/graduate/asian/asiancourses.shtml]Recently”>http://arthistory.uchicago.edu/graduate/asian/asiancourses.shtml)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe UConn and Yale and Williams have the same opportunities available to potential art historians. However, it is really a judgment call whether Yale and Williams are worth the money. However, if they all cost the same amount, are you directing the future art historian to UConn??</p>
<p>edit: I understand that the majority of potential art history students don’t have the option of Yale and Williams but this is just an example of how some schools are better for some students than others. imo</p>
<p>On a personal level, I don’t know a thing about the Ivy schools. Never attended one. I don’t really have a basis on which to make a valid pronouncement about “Top Tier Schools”.</p>
<p>It would be crazy for me to try to convince anyone that my undergraduate degree from a third (maybe fourth… possibly fifth, if such a thing exists) tier public directional college could ever be compared to what would have been available to me at Harvard or Stanford. </p>
<p>What I think a top tier school has, if nothing else, is opportunities that just aren’t there at other schools, and I think it is ridiculous to argue that lower ranked schools can come close. </p>
<p>If I can compare in terms of high schools: I’ve lived in every corner and the middle of the U.S. I’m fortunate enough that we landed in a terrific public school district at the time that my oldest started middle school. My kids are AWARE of, and EXPOSED to levels of achievement that they just wouldn’t have had if they had attended high school somewhere else. They have pushed to achieve in ways that they wouldn’t have been, just because they have attended classes with frankly, amazingly intelligent kids. Just to see the possibilities out there have been a terrific influence. I know that if my two oldest had been of high school age in some of the places we have lived in, we would have had to send them to a private school, where there are better opportunities and where they could have seen a bigger world of possibilities. </p>
<p>And I think that any parent here on CC would do the same for their young children. Why wouldn’t we do the same for our college age kids? We want them to be challenged in an appropriate way. Sometimes that can be achieved at a community college. For some kids a state flagship is exactly the right place, and for some that place is MIT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I called you an elitist? Please direct me to that post; it’s not my normal practice to call people names, and if in the heat of battle – er, vigorous discussions – I slipped up, then I retract the accusation and abjectly apologize and beg forgiveness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they’re a basketball fan, why not? Actually, if they all cost the same, then I’d look at some of the socioeconomic factors, from which you can make a weak case that graduating from a more prestigious school may confer advantages. But if UConn felt better to me, I’d probably choose it nonetheless. But I wouldn’t necessarily recommend that to anyone else.</p>