What is the most impt factor in selecting a college?

College Search & Selection
121

<p>
[quote]
What about the study saying that it is the qualifications of the applicants that determines how they later do financially? Someone looked at the earnings of those who went to elite schools in comparison to those who were admitted to such schools but opted to go elsewhere. The earnings were the same.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In my opinion, that study is deeply flawed because it presumes that those people who got into an elite school but chose to go elsewhere did so randomly. Yet we all know that that isn't the case. For example, people who get into elite schools don't just turn it down for some lesser school just "for fun". They do so for specific reasons. </p>

<p>For example, I know some people who turned down Ivies to go to a combined BS/MD program at a lesser school. Guaranteed admission to med-school is priceless these days. I know other people who turned down Ivies for a full merit ride + stipend at a lesser school. I know one guy who turned down Ivies for a lesser school - which might seem stupid until you realize that in addition to being a smart guy, he was also a highly coveted football star, and that lesser school has a bigtime ranked football program. Basically, he went to that 'lesser' school not only for the football scholarship but more importantly because he felt that it would give him the best shot at getting to the NFL. </p>

<p>The point is, those people who get into top schools but opt not to go make that choice for specific reasons, and it is precisely these reasons that allow them to make good money later. For example, those people who entered BS/MD programs at no-name schools will obviously make a lot of money once they're doctors. If that guy I referred to above makes it to the NFL, he could easily make millions. </p>

<p>The point is, that study is flawed because the experiment is not 'randomized. The two groups are not randomly determined. Rather, the people self-select themselves into the group they want to be in. </p>

<p>The true conclusion of the study is that if you have a good reason to turn down a top-ranked school, you might want to do so. But that doesn't mean that everybody who gets into a top-ranked school should turn it down. For example, if you don't have an offer to play football at a major college program, then maybe you shouldn't turn down an Ivy.</p>

122

<p>You do like to disagree with me, don't you, sakky? (Now watch, you will disagree with me about that :) )</p>

<p>Of course, they turn down the top-ranked schools for a reason, financial or otherwise. But I don't think that this makes the study "deeply flawed." The assumption without proof that going to an elite school is necessarily better is rather more flawed. A comparison of elite students to elite students is more valid than a comparison of elite students to a combination of elite/nonelite students.</p>

<p>I suspect that the most common reason for not going to the elite schools was that the money offered wasn't good enough. Why go to the bother of applying if not interested? But how much someone is out of pocket for college isn't a factor that has an obvious impact on what people earn once they get out of college. As far as combined BS/MD programs are concerned, if this is an advantage of nonelite schools, why would it be improper to take it into account? If more people can make it into medical school from nonelite places, so be it. Finally, so few people make it into professional sports I doubt this had an impact on the study figures ...</p>

<p>It was not a randomized experiment, true; it wasn't an "experiment" at all. Try telling folks that they have to go to a particular college because we want to do this study ... If you know of a better study or some way to tease out a better conclusion from what information is publicly available, I'd be glad to hear it.</p>

<p>I don't have anything against selective, expensive schools. I never said anything to the effect that "everybody who gets into a top-ranked school should turn it down." My kids both go to top-ranked schools. But the reasons they selected them had nothing to do with the expectation that this would assure higher future earnings or an easier path to graduate school. If someone can prove that this is true, I'll actually be a little happier paying those whopping bills ...</p>

<p>In other words, I wouldn't want to pay so much more unless I was sure there was a reason for doing so -- a better or unique academic program, a better fit in some way, etc. I wouldn't assume that because a school is expensive, people must get higher earnings at the end to make up for that.</p>

123

<p>The study is flawed because it was conducted all from one group in one location and was done so starting in 1972. </p>

<p>COMMON SENSE lets you see post-graduate surveys and see that certain schools like Wharton allow you A HIGHER CHANCE of going to places like Goldman Sachs and other top firms. </p>

<p>You can't just point at one essay and DENY common sense and say "Yea it doesnt matter where u go."</p>

<p>If you want to delude yourself into thinking so, then go ahead.</p>

124

<p>
[quote]
But how much someone is out of pocket for college isn't a factor that has an obvious impact on what people earn once they get out of college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would actually argue that it is. I would say that somebody who thinks this way is thrifty and responsible with money. And it is precisely these same people who would tend to pursue highly marketable degrees. On the other hand, take those people who don't care about money, either because they're irresponsible, or because they come from families that are so rich that they don't have to worry about money. It is precisely these people who will tend to choose careers and degrees that don't pay particularly well. For example, if I were a trust-fund baby, I'd be perfectly happy spending the rest of my life volunteering for a nonprofit. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As far as combined BS/MD programs are concerned, if this is an advantage of nonelite schools, why would it be improper to take it into account?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is not improper to take it into account. But it changes the 'conclusion' of the study. Basically, the true conclusion of the study is that if you expect to enjoy the kind of success that those people who got into top schools and turned it down enjoyed, then you have to have the same sorts of reasons that those people did. Otherwise, then you cannot compare yourself to those people, because you didn't self-select yourself in the way that they did.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't have anything against selective, expensive schools. I never said anything to the effect that "everybody who gets into a top-ranked school should turn it down." My kids both go to top-ranked schools. But the reasons they selected them had nothing to do with the expectation that this would assure higher future earnings or an easier path to graduate school. If someone can prove that this is true, I'll actually be a little happier paying those whopping bills ...</p>

<p>In other words, I wouldn't want to pay so much more unless I was sure there was a reason for doing so -- a better or unique academic program, a better fit in some way, etc. I wouldn't assume that because a school is expensive, people must get higher earnings at the end to make up for that

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I personally think the biggest advantage that these top private schools have is that they are safer. In fact, I think we talked about this once. Basically, at most of the top private schools, it's practically impossible to flunk out. You be lazy, might be mediocre, and thus get mediocre grades, but you're going to graduate. Even Ted Kennedy got caught cheating twice at Harvard (and once so egregiously that he was forced to take a 2 year leave of absence), but Harvard still allowed him to graduate. </p>

<p>Contrast that with certain other schools, notably public schools that shall remain unnamed, in which, quite frankly, they don't really care whether you graduate or not. If you do, great. If you have problems, that's too bad for you, they will expel you for poor performance, and they won't care about why you are performing poorly. I've seen students with serious boyfriend/girlfriend issues, issues with mental illness, issues with drug and alcohol abuse, and a wide range of other maladies simply get coldly expelled by their school administrators without a second thought. </p>

<p>Hence, my point is that the top private schools are much safer schools in the sense that you are almost guaranteed to get a degree. Whereas at the lesser schools, you run the significant danger of not graduating. </p>

<p>I'll give you an example from the LFM program at MIT, which is the 2-year dual-degree MBA/MS program at MIT. While nobody seriously disputes that the program is highly rigorous (after all, you are getting 2 degrees in the same timeframe that onewould individually get only 1 of those degrees), LFM implements various safeguards to ensure that everybody graduates. For example, the director of the program specifically places feelers out to the students to check on each other to report on those who are having problems, especially for those international students for which English fluency is often times an issue and who won't ask for help. Other schools don't care. You're an international student and you're having problems because your English isn't good? Too bad for you, you're going to be expelled. LFM takes a proactive approach to ensuring that everybody graduates. Other programs at other schools just don't care.</p>

125

<p>Well, then, come up with a better study.</p>

<p>Post-graduate surveys don't show why firms hire the people they do -- is it the prestige of the school, the academic excellence of the school, or the average ability of people who make it into the school? I submit that the common sense conclusion is that hard-headed business people hire the people with the best education and the best native ability they can, and don't give a fig for the name of the school or how expensive it was. In other words, who can do the job the best?</p>

<p>I never said that it doesn't matter where you go. I said there should be a good reason for paying extra that is supported by evidence and not assumption. As I told sakky, if you have a better study -- and no, for the reason I already stated more than once, post-graduate surveys are not better -- let's hear it. </p>

<p>I have no ideological objection to the notion that more expensive colleges have an independent effect on lifetime earnings. I would like to think that is true because I'm paying $40,000 plus for each of two kids in elite schools right now. But I am not going to delude myself into assuming something is true just because I would like it to be.</p>

<p>Maybe I have a different point of view because I am a parent and thus the one expected to come up with the bucks. </p>

<p>Someone interested in Wharton should understand the concept of net present value. Even assuming higher earnings with an elite school (as compared to those of someone who was admitted, but did not attend) -- something for which I have seen no proof -- if you discount the difference back to present value does it equal or exceed the difference in tuition one must be out-of-pocket now? Or does it make a difference if it is your parents' money that goes for the tuition and your own later earnings? Will you pay them back for their investment in your future?</p>

<p>This may seem harsh. But there was recently an interesting thread on the parents board about all this. There were stories of parents scrimping and saving, taking out multiple mortgages, extra jobs, etc. just to pay for elite educations. The kids get out, make good money, live an affluent life style -- and leave their parents saddled with a lack of savings and extra debt.</p>

<p>If it is your own money involved, go where you want for whatever reason. If you want someone else to pay for it, though, it is not unreasonable to ask that you prove the added expense is worth it.</p>

126

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>We cross-posted. But as I said before, show me a different study or a way to tease out the self-selection problem you see with the one I mentioned.</p>

<p>Maybe I just live in a too affluent area. There are all these kids that want to go to prestige schools simply because they are prestigious. They don't seem to know what they want to study, how strong the academics are, or how easy or hard it is to graduate. It all comes down to the name. Mom and Dad can just take out a second mortgage ... </p>

<p>
[quote]
I would say that somebody who thinks this way is thrifty and responsible with money. And it is precisely these same people who would tend to pursue highly marketable degrees. On the other hand, take those people who don't care about money, either because they're irresponsible, or because they come from families that are so rich that they don't have to worry about money. It is precisely these people who will tend to choose careers and degrees that don't pay particularly well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wouldn't this indicate that people who want to end up with the most money should select a cheaper school -- they can still get marketable degrees that way, they will get out of school with less debt, their parents will have the funds to help them later on or will leave a bigger inheritance, etc.?</p>

<p>You haven't said what you think. Should a student go for the expensive prestige school if there is a cheaper alternative available with comparable academic quality?</p>

127

<p>Comparable academic quality is relative. Are you comparing schools like Wharton to UVA? If so, then I guess where you go doesn't really matter but if you are comparing like Wharton to Penn State then yes there is a difference. You can check salaries 5 years out and obviously when Wharton is sending just about EVERYONE to prestigious firms and Penn State consistently only sends the top 5%, there is a HUGE difference.</p>

<p>This isn't just one data set, you can look at top firm recruitment from the last 5 years at Wharton and see such data differ from Penn State
data. </p>

<p>In summary: It depends on WHAT you are comparing such schools to. For example, I took a free ride to Carnegie Mellon's Tepper (I'm now a prospective computational finance major which is SCS/Business) over schools such as Stern and Columbia. I would say such schools are of COMPARABLE academic quality.</p>

<p>However if you are comparing schools like Stern/Columbia vs Penn State, I would pick Stern/Columbia.</p>

128

<p>Again, you can't compare Wharton to Penn State because the people at Wharton start out with more ability on average, as shown by their high school statistics (an assumption on my part -- too lazy to look it up). If only the top 5% of Penn State's business program graduates (you didn't say business program -- but this is the only comparison that makes sense) go on to "prestigious firms," could this not be because only the top 5% have the same native ability as "just about EVERYONE" at Wharton?</p>

<p>But I don't know anything about the qualities of different business programs. It is conceivable that prestige is linked to actual academic quality in this and other fields where there are actual rankings of specific programs. I've only knowingly met one person from Wharton and he was an idiot, so I don't know that I'm the best one to ask LOL</p>

<p>I don't measure academic quality, in other words, by the university's ability to wow folks if you put it as a decal on your car or a parent's ability to arouse envy at cocktail parties. I would look at a variety of factors -- what people in the field say; the CVs of faculty; the course offerings; whether professors or TAs teach the classes; what students and alums say about the program; the library and other facilities relevant to the program; research, internships, or other special programs available at a school; etc.</p>

<p>Most undergraduate programs do not have rankings, though. I think people would do best to do their own research and see what they think. </p>

<p>I'll give you an example of where I'm coming from on all this. There was a thread on the parents board involving someone whose child wanted the more expensive, elite school but couldn't come up with any reasons for it beyond prestige. She couldn't even point to post-graduate statistics. The father was agonizing over whether it would be worth it to scrape together the extra $100,000 just to make her happy. The alternative would be the cheaper school (one the daughter admitted was little different academically) and the ability to help her financially later on with grad school, a house downpayment, etc. </p>

<p>With a free ride (congrats!) there is no reason not to pick the best. You can even opt for prestige :) I won't buy a luxury car because the added cost wouldn't be worth it to me. But if someone is going to GIVE me a car and I have a choice, well, that's another matter!</p>

129

<p>Oh, I forgot two other examples I was going to give. I should have breakfast before I start talking ...</p>

<p>I don't think those discussions of relative prestige on CC make any sense at all. For instance, is it better to go to Cornell because more people have heard of it or to Brown because its admit rate is lower and so knowledgeable people will know that IT is more elite?</p>

<p>Last example, I promise. I know someone who wants her three kids in Ivy League schools. It doesn't matter which Ivy, the proposed fields, the atmosphere or location of the schools, etc. Ivy is best and the more selective, the better. She was very upset when her oldest "only" got into Cornell. The poor kid was certainly put through her paces; she took the right courses at the right school, with the right ECs, and literally took the ACT every time it was offered for years (ACT has score choice so only the top score would be reported). The mom is particularly worried about her youngest two now because they don't have the academic stats of the oldest. I gave up trying to tell her that there are good schools beyond the Ivies.</p>

130

<p>You have basically proved one of my major points. You can be a bit of an idiot at Wharton and if you graduate at the top 50% of your class, you can still get Wall Street.</p>

<p>If you are at Penn State and SUPER SMART but you are top 50 or even top 20% of your class, you will probably not make it to that same firm on Wall Street.</p>

<p>My point? </p>

<p>You can go to Penn State and be SUPER SMART and have a greater risk because you MUST get that top 5% to go where you want to go while the "dumbass" wharton kid can just get top 50% and get in the same position as you.</p>

<p>That is what I am saying when I talking about GREATER CHANCES for success at top firms. It's a numbers game and you can be super smart but you are taking a risk (albeit small or large depending on the school) by attending less prestigious schools.</p>

<p>In fact, certain companies like Lazard and Blackstone do not even recruit at schools like say.. George Mason. If top companies do not even RECRUIT at your school, obviously there is an issue there to address. You can be super smart but will Blackstone hire you for 185k a year? NO.</p>

<p>read this: <a href="http://www.*******.com/thread.php?thread_id=363177&mc=50&forum_id=1%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.*******.com/thread.php?thread_id=363177&mc=50&forum_id=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

131

<p>Oh crap censored.. I'll pm it to you</p>

132

<p>I don't know if the idiot I have in mind made it to Wall Street or not. He was an "expert" witness in a case that I had delight of cross-examining. Given the way his sponsoring attorney was overheard yelling at him during a break (the "idiot" part was his term, or more specifically, "[very bad word] idiot"), I don't think he ended up with a thriving career as a witness. I just googled him and got no hits at all.</p>

<p>Perhaps I shouldn't have shared my one anecdote about Wharton. It was sure memorable, though!</p>

<p>I won't repeat myself about the statistics. I think we will have to agree to disagree. </p>

<p>I will agree with you about something, though. If a student is interested in top companies and they don't recruit at a particular school, this would seem a good reason to look elsewhere. I suspect that companies would go to a particular school, though, because they view it as having brighter and better educated graduates :)</p>

<p>I got your private message, but the link doesn't work that way either. I've noticed if something is too old, CC doesn't want to bring it up. Could that be the problem?</p>

133

<p>
[quote]
Post-graduate surveys don't show why firms hire the people they do -- is it the prestige of the school, the academic excellence of the school, or the average ability of people who make it into the school? I submit that the common sense conclusion is that hard-headed business people hire the people with the best education and the best native ability they can, and don't give a fig for the name of the school or how expensive it was. In other words, who can do the job the best?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>For certain employers, namely those that are client-focused and sales-focused, I believe that the general prestige of the school is key. After all, for investment banking and consulting firms, what they're really selling are their people, and it's easier to obtain clients when you can brag that your employees came from big-name schools. </p>

<p>For other kinds of jobs, it is true that employers just want a competent employee. The problem is, how do you know if somebody is competent? After all, everybody is going to claim that they are competent. And some people are really really good at interviewing, but really bad at the job. </p>

<p>That's a general problem in all labor markets - nobody really knows how competent an employee is going to be until hired, and even after he is hired, it's still often times difficult to determine whether somebody is competent or not. There are many job functions in which it is quite difficult to determine who is competent and who isn't. Like marketing. Like business development. Some people are really bad workers but really good office politicians such that nobody really notices how bad their work is. In other words, to use econ-speak, labor markets are fraught with information asymmetries. You don't really know what you're getting until you get it, and even after you get it, you sometimes still don't really know what you got. </p>

<p>Hence, when faced with information asymmetries, people rely on information signals. When I go to a foreign country and have to decide to eat at either McDonalds or some small shop I have never heard of, I may choose to eat at McDonalds. Why? Because I don't know anything about that small shop. Is it clean? Will I like the food? Will I get sick after I eat there? Who knows? At least with McDonalds, while they may not serve me the best food in the world, at least I know what I am getting and I can be reasonably sure that it is going to be palatable and won't make me sick. In other words, McDonalds uses its brand name as an information signal. That small shop doesn't provide me with any signal which makes me wary to transact there.</p>

<p>The same is true of these high-prestige schools. Once again, it's about sending information signals to the market. Companies just want to get good employees, and if a school develops a reputation for graduating good employees, then that's the signal that the company is looking for. As to why that school produces good employees is unimportant. Whether that school's curricula is excellent or whether it just admits very high quality people in the first place is irrelevant - in the eyes of the company, the only thing that matters is the final product. For example, when I look for a highly reliable car, I shop for a Toyota. Whether it's because Toyota's workers are highly skilled, or their manufacturing processes are well run or they use excellent input components - I don't care. As a consumer, all I care about is that a Toyota car is highly reliable, and I don't care why. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't this indicate that people who want to end up with the most money should select a cheaper school -- they can still get marketable degrees that way, they will get out of school with less debt, their parents will have the funds to help them later on or will leave a bigger inheritance, etc.?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, like I said, if you come from a super-rich family, another 100-200k here or there isn't going to matter in the long run. Honestly, what's the difference between inheriting 1 million and 1.2 million? </p>

<p>However, for those people who don't come from such families, I agree that it is important to look for bargains. However, I would point out that if you are really poor, then the high-prestige private schools may be the best deal of all. For example, Harvard guarantees full rides (in the form of 100% full grants) to anybody whose families make less than 40k. I distinctly remember 2 people I know who came from California, and found that it was actually cheaper for them to go to Harvard than to Berkeley, once financial aid was factored in, and despite the fact that they were in-state students. One of them drolly and mordantly said that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it, so now he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard.</p>

134

<p>I think we've pretty much talked out this issue. What I would say in response I realize I've already said.</p>

<p>I've also noticed this thread was supposed to be a poll of what people thought was most important ... I'm not sure anybody is listening to our debate.</p>

135

<p>Hah. Yes I think most people here are prestige and thus ranking whores.</p>

<p>Many a times I shake my head when I see a post titled "Chances at ANY Ivy?" I wonder if sometimes such students choose the Ivy name and schools like Brown over say.. JHU even if they are doing pre-med.</p>

136

<p>However, the ranking of medical schools puts JHU over Brown. So I'm not sure how that plays out. Would a pre-med obsessed with ranking therefore choose JHU instead?</p>

<p>Yesterday I happened to ask my daughter, who is at Brown, if she runs into many people who seemed to have picked the school because it is an Ivy. (She picked it because it is the only school in the US with an Eygptology major.) She said she basically finds people who like the school because of the lack of distribution requirements, those and her tight little cadre of Egyptophiles. Or perhaps it is not politically correct at Brown to admit to a concern about status ... it is supposed to be the "hippie Ivy" after all.</p>

<p>My understanding is that there is quite a difference in the level of competitiveness at Brown (little) and JHU (a lot). I imagine that pre-med at JHU would be particularly hellish. So maybe folks making the choice you hypothesize do so for reasons other than the name.</p>

137

<p>definetly the acadimic strength thats why my top schools all have a top ten engineering college</p>

138

<p>its most important to learn and also location/reputation/students</p>

139

<p>I think prestige is a cop-out.</p>

<p>It's placing the world's overall perception of the school above your own. College is supposed to be about INDIVIDUAL exploration of yourself and what kind of a person you want to be in the world. </p>

<p>People should stay true to themselves and disregard the pressures and opinions of popular thinking.</p>

140

<p>People want jobs..prestige means something different to everyone and to me it means job opps and academic quality (such as having esteemed and prestigious professors in my field of study).</p>