<p>If you're going to major in something like chem engineering or just take your pre med requirements.Wouldn't it seem pretty senseless to pay nearly 200k over 4 years when you could just go to a state school for a tenth of the price.When it makes no difference when you graduate.</p>
<p>first of all, it does make a difference when you graduate. many top colleges are feeder schools for certain companies, so it's easier for you to find a good job. and also, it's called getting need-based financial aid at top schools. example: my sister is a senior at harvard and will graduate this spring with my family only paying 15k for her entire harvard education. result- the name of her undergrad college will get her far. she's already been accepted by grad schools and been offered jobs.<br>
you really have no information/stats to back up your opinion, do you?<br>
yes, state schools are fine, and if money is an issue they're an option, but like i said, large institutions like ivy league schools have great financial aid. all you have to do is get accepted to their school. and for people who don't need financial aid, there is still nothing "senseless" about paying for an ivy league education.</p>
<p>auto matriculation anybody?</p>
<p>I can see commonsense's point, but I agree more with JoggerBlue. I'm at Duke right now because it was a lot cheaper than UNC would've been. Furthermore, the concept of "fit" does come into the equation! Not all people are prestige whores (which, intended or not, your post does imply), and most try to pick out schools that fit them. If one of those schools is an Ivy, well, why not apply? Brown's broad course offerings and no requirements would be a lot more attractive to many people than the rigid set of required classes at many state universities, for example. The atmosphere of the school is even more important. The same student will not be happy at both Yale and X State Party School U.</p>
<p>Well obviously my arguement goes out of the window if you can attendan Ivy league school for the same price as a state school.</p>
<p>well it's kinda like saying, "why go to a state university when you could go to community college for less than half the price?" well, employers are gonna look at your degree in a different light if you graduate from a state uni, right? (Though I'm not dissing comm colleges -- in noVA a lot of people take classes there for two years and then transfer to UVA/VATech, etc) </p>
<p>State universities are often really good (like UVA or UMich), but Ivy Leagues will make it a lot easier to get into a good grad school. But it depends on what kinda school you want, I guess.</p>
<p>You have to look at your own family's economics. A friend of mine went to her state school- U. Wisconsin - and then to Harvard Medical School. She went for financial reasons (she was choosing between Yale and U.Wisc) and had a blast at Wisconsin and ended up with a very prestigious job at a Harvard Hospital. You can apply to the schools you are interested in and compare financial packages, factoring in where you think you'll enjoy going to school. But for undergrad it is less important where you go if you are going on to med. school, IMHO</p>
<p>I agree it depends on economics. If you qualify for no aid and you have a good state school, your arguement works. If you can get aid and the difference is doable, go to the ivy for a better college experience and better grad school placement.</p>
<p>There are also, of course, a lot of families who can afford an Ivy League education with no financial aid.</p>
<p>It may seem like a lot in some areas, but wer're talking about 5% of the population who should be able to afford an ivy education without aid. Just read all the posts though, by kids with EFCs that say thei parents can pay, but the parents are spending on other things and can't.</p>
<p>being international sucks :P
As a U.S. citizen though, the discrepancy between the cost of attending a state uni and an ivy league institution would be minimized through the schools' generous financial aid programs.</p>
<p>I've read about a study of earnings of those who go to prestige schools versus those who were admitted to such but chose cheaper ones. I believe it is discussed in the book Harvard Schmarvard. I originally saw it in the press when first released.</p>
<p>Anyway, there is no difference in earnings. Obviously, there is a difference in earnings just looking at averages for the two types of schools, but then you aren't holding ability constant. Hold ability constant (by looking at only those admitted to the selective schools)and earnings are the same.</p>
<p>But, all is not what you can earn in your lifetime. Sometimes there is something about a particular school that renders it better in a prospective student's eyes beyond the prestige factor. Perhaps there is a distinctive program that isn't available in a cheaper school. (The reason my daughter is at Brown.) Perhaps a department at a particular school is just better than those elsewhere -- professor qualifications, course offerings, special programs. Perhaps a student likes the size of classes and intellectual atmosphere at a more selective school (although large state schools can have honors programs which may mitigate this). Perhaps there is something else special about the school (another selling point for Brown for my daughter was the lack of distribution requirements). </p>
<p>Of course, you can't make the decision about what is worth what until you know your financial aid packages at different places.</p>
<p>financial aid has become the largest fundraising focus at top private schools.</p>
<p>as a recent development, at princeton, brown, harvard, and yale, the neediest students now attend for free. within the next ten years, very wealthy universities that can afford to replace loans with grants are likely to be cheaper than most public schools.</p>