<p>There has been many documentation about the idea that attending top tiered schools has no financial benefit for the student after accounting for personal ability. However, before we all volunteer to drag ourselves to Cheap@ss University, I want people to consider the following. This post is made because I am simply sick of people saying that where you go to undergrad does not matter: it does.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It is a clear symbol of achievement to attend a top tiered school. Through a diploma at a top tiered school, employers know that a student has been selected and filtered as of high personal ability. By attending a lower tiered school even if the student in question is of the same caliber, the question holds: why didn't you go to HYPSM if you are so talented?</p></li>
<li><p>Connection. When you are out of a job, do you want to go to your old friend at Wharton for networking or your friend at cheap@ass U? Most literature acknowledge that there are network benefits of attending a prestigious university.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Conclusion: I hope that persuades fewer people to comfort themselves that going to a home state U is as good as a top tiered one if they "push themselves" in college. This is an flawed belief based on the assumption that the people in question will outwork the people at top tiered schools.</p>
<p>If you make connections at a home state university by doing well there and taking advantage of the resources, you can end up in an excellent position.</p>
<p>However, in terms of hiring without the involvement of any connections you may or may not have made, the top-tiered schools definitely provide a hiring advantage.</p>
<p>Once you’re hired, though, the name of the school matters far less than what you actually got out of your college education, as your work performance becomes far more important than your educational history in terms of actually moving up in your job.</p>
<p>Thus, while top-tiered schools will help with getting jobs initially, doing well at a lower-ranked (but still high-quality) schools can be just as advantageous in terms of actually <em>advancing</em> your career (and thus earning more money).</p>
<p>A full ride at a good (but not top-tier) public university can therefore be an excellent option even when compared to top-ranked schools.</p>
<p>The idea that it makes sense to consider elite schools irrespective of major, learning style or type of school one attends is ludicrous. Promoting an “all else being equal” position when all else is NOT equal is irresponsible. A few additional comments:</p>
<p>1- the major: for kids that know they want a particular course of study the “best schools” are the ones that are best in that major . . . e.g., Kenyon for English; Cal Poly SLO for civil engineering; Lehigh for aeronautical engineering; even The OSU for turf management
2- learning style: if you thrive as the Biggest Fish . . or if you yearn for teaching from Professors whose primary job is education of undergrads not research it would be folly to ignore those primary factors in favor of an “elite” list
3- type of school: small school? large school? mix of other students? these factors affect the success of an individual student much more than its reputation</p>
<p>Briefly, go where you would thrive; if that is also an elite HYPed school, fine. But it’s foolish to disregard your own needs to gain connections outside of your interests or to chase someone else’s idea of what is “best.”</p>
<p>The school with the name DOES matter. NEVER kid yourself or console yourself by pretending that it does not.</p>
<p>I am many, many, many (many?) years out of Princeton, yet it still serves as an extra ‘plus’ and jumps off the resume - my current boss admitted so. Am I hired just because of it? Hell no, not after this many years. As many have said, it’s what you have done and can do in the workplace that seals any deal, and that has very little to do with your ever-more-distant college years.</p>
<p>But be warned; it makes a difference. I don’t tout my alma mater, yet my bosses and colleagues are quick to comment to others about their ‘ivy league guy’ in the mix. I have been embarrased at how it is brought up by two bosses in conversation with others. I’m proud of it, but I don’t sell it (other than the resume). But others remember it.</p>
<p>So YES, it matters. You still need to perform with energy, ability and creativity in the real workplace throughout your career. If you’re a stump, the paper won’t save you from your results. But if you perform well, it is an extra, powerful asset that no one will ever take away from you. </p>
<p>From my (admittedly lengthened!) experience - YES. It matters.</p>
<p>Also, it’s worth noting that, while an Ivy League education is expensive, it needs only to provide a small increase in annual salary to add up over a lifetime of work to more than the cost of the education. For example, if it costs $100K extra to get an Ivy League education as compared to your other option(s), that’s less than $3K per year salary increase as a result of the Ivy over 35 years to make it worth the investment.</p>
<p>Attending a school is not and can never be an achievement in itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no such thing as ‘high personal ability.’ Also, I would never be stupid enough to hire a 30-something based on someone else’s assessment of his or her college application.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would address this argument if the awful grammar weren’t so distracting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I ever found myself in that position, I’d ideally prefer to be owed a favor by someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg… Oh wait.</p>
<p>I’m not saying there are no benefits to attending a well known university, but this article is incredibly obnoxious.</p>
<p>While it would seem reasonable to assume that there is some water cooler effect with the “wow” factor of certain schools, in my mind I am not sure this would extend beyond Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and MIT.</p>
<p>I am certainly not sure that the rest of the elites including Columbia, Dartmouth, UChicago, Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, Duke, Caltech, Upenn (not to mention Vanderbilt, JHU, Georgetown, Swarthmore, etc) are regularly bandied about by bosses bragging to others.</p>
<p>And I am not even convinced that the water cooler effect is all that prevalent in the real world</p>
<p>This might be the case for majors where it is difficult to get a job nowadays, but for those like engineering, I don’t think it applies. Got to say, a lot of the highest salaries come from schools that no one has heard of. WPI and Stevens have some of the highest ROI in the nation. I really hope this wasn’t meant to be high and mighty, but it kind of came off that way:
You’re essentially telling people, after getting their admission at a school and denied from other schools, that they will never be as successful as someone like you who had the skill to get into Princeton. You actually used the phrase “I hope this will convince less people to comfort themselves.” I don’t really think you should ever want people NOT to comfort themselves.</p>
<p>As for the local state school thing, founder of google went to his local state school, he’s doing just fine. Penn State has a crazy alumni network as well.
Also, top ten salaries in engineering schools have Three elite schools (MIT, CalTech, and Mudd) topping the list, then a bunch of mortal schools trailing at around $500 less of an average. wouldn’t say its too substantial a difference.</p>
<p>I am hesitant to reply given the OP’s history as of ■■■■■■■■ on CC, but I’ll risk it.
I’m assuming you didn’t read your own thread title. If this is the case, why isn’t there a larger ROI?</li>
</ol>
<p>But I will grant this point to some extent. Students interested in investment banking and management consulting can indeed benefit from attending a target school.</p>
<p>Your fatal error is the assumption that this caveat applies to all students. It does not.
Except that you could earn interest on that $100k. Even at current rates, conservative long-term CDs could turn that $100k into an awful lot more.</p>
<p>Also, the cost difference may be closer to $200k.</p>
<p>^
All depends on how much is paid by the parents and how much is paid by the student. In terms of what the student spends, it also depends on whether it’s paid through loans, savings, income, or various combinations thereof.</p>
<p>The more the parents pay, the more the student stands to gain.</p>
<p>Ultimately, I think there’s more to it than the financial considerations. There’s all the considerations as to the actual educational experience and all the other benefits that come from an education. Where a student will gain the most from their education really depends on the interests, personality, and desires of the student. Some students may be much happier at an Ivy League school and would thus choose to attend one even if there was no financial benefit at all.</p>
I think this is a rather unfair misconstruction. A lot of people on these forums claim that there is little benefit in going to an elite institution over a financial safety. Included in this are those people who got into both and chose the financial option. The OP clearly isn’t weighing the value of elite vs. cheap for those who didn’t get into both, and buzzlook was saying that he has noticed benefits of having Princeton on his resume.</p>
<p>I agree with Buzzlook. Attending a top tiered school immediately marks you and distinguishes you from others in the work place. </p>
<p>@Noimagination</p>
<p>When people are out of work, what do they do? Send out resumes? To whom?
To the people the know. They ask for suggestions and help promoting themselves in various work communities. This holds in many fields, from the business to the academic world. </p>
<p>I also think its important to recognize that being at a top tiered school allows you to be around other top students. Being friends with people who are smart and ambitious means better likelihood that your friends are able to connect you to better careers and help you when you are struggling later in life. At large public schools, it is harder (not impossible) to find similar people. I mean, isn’t it worth it to be exposed to a larger number of intellectual people? Don’t people pay a heavy premium for this luxury (think people buying single shares of Berkshire Hathaway to hear Buffet talk onces a year)?</p>
<p>^ If the benefits you describe to attending an elite school are valid, then why did they not translate to higher earning power in this research?</p>
<p>“I don’t tout my alma mater, yet my bosses and colleagues are quick to comment to others about their ‘ivy league guy’ in the mix . . . So YES, it matters.”</p>
<p>YES!!! And that’s why Cal Poly SLO and Babson and Harrvey Mudd and Williams and WPI and Kenyon and Berklee and RPI and Olin and Lehigh carry such weight . . . because they are elite schools in their disciplines.</p>
<p>P.S. Somehow people always find out that you are the Ivy League guy?</p>
<p>What percent of elite college grads are unemployed? That’s right, very very very low. Now suppose thats these elite college grads (lets assume unemployment rate of say 3%, lower than average college grads) contacted their buddies. Some of them will be better off. But ON THE AVERAGE, there is almost no financial benefit for all elite college grads. Thus this benefit is marginalized.</p>
<p>Being around smart people is a luxury that does not necessarily have financial benefits. Its a luxury…</p>
According to who? Do you have data? I know some unemployed Ivy League graduates, and this anecdotal evidence is just as valid as yours.</p>
<p>
Why? This is a number you made up to serve your purposes. Unless and until you provide data to backup your claim, it remains pure speculation at best and a departure from facts in a floundering attempt to justify college elitism at worst.</p>
<p>I was going to question your sources for what seemed to me to be speculative figures on unemployment, but BillyMc addressed this above already. </p>
<p>To address the second part of your argument: I’m not particularly persuaded by your contention that the “luxury” of being in the company of “smart people” is justifcation for an additional 6 figure outlay? Why not just join mensa for $63 a year? And again, if this “luxury” had any tangible value, why was this not reflected in the research results?</p>
<p>My comment addresses your concern. I was arguing that this luxury has no tangible value. You argued in your first post that it does. I was mentioning a benefit of attending an elite school that has personal but no financial value.</p>
<p>@BillyMc</p>
<p>If the average College grad’s unemployment rate is 5%, it should hold that people with more human capital are in higher demand and thus less likely to be unemployed. I suspect the unemployment rate from top tiered colleges to be drastically lower (closer to 2-3%).</p>
<p>Evidence: 5% figure is from featured article. The rest is from my logic based on my AP Econ class.</p>